Skip To Main Content
Nicholas L. Bartelli on Muck Rack

Nicholas L. Bartelli

As seen in: Nature, Wiley Online Library
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work. Claim your profile

Get in touch with Nicholas L.

Contact Nicholas L., search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.

Learn more about Muck Rack

Actions

Share this page

Is this you?

As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile

Articles

Elongation Factor Tu Acts as a Chaperone to Activate an Antibacterial RNase Toxin

|
By Dinh Nhan, Karolina Michalska, Fernando Garza-Sánchez, Nicholas L. Bartelli
| Wiley Online Library Verified
Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Supporting Information Filename Description mmi70053-sup-0001-FigureS1.pdfPDF document, 1.4 MB Figure S1: mmi70053-sup-0001-FigureS1.pdf. mmi70053-sup-0002-FigureS2.pdfPDF document, 1.6 MB Figure S2: mmi70053-sup-0002-FigureS2.pdf.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

Author Correction: Proteolytic processing induces a conformational switch required for antibacterial toxin delivery - Nature Communications

|
By Nicholas L. Bartelli, Karolina Michalska, Bonnie J. Cuthbert, Nicholas Wilson, Jesse S. Basra, Ricardo Cortés, Isaac Poonen-Honig, Celia W. Goulding, David Low, Andrzej Joachimiak
| Nature Verified
Correction to: Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32795-y, published online 29 August 2022 The original version of this Article contained an error in Table 1. The correct version of the 11th row of the 2nd column states ‘0.635’ instead of the original, incorrect ‘−0.635’. The correct version of the 12th row of the 2nd column states ‘0.881’ instead of the original, incorrect ‘−0.881’. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.
Open in Who Shared View Duplicates (4) Issue with article?
See all 2 articles