In Silico Investigation of the New UK (B.1.1.7) and South African (501Y.V2) SARS-CoV-2 Variants with a Focus at the ACE2-Spike RBD Interface.
Amino Acid Substitution
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2
/ chemistry
Antibodies, Neutralizing
/ immunology
Antibodies, Viral
/ immunology
Binding Sites
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
Computer Simulation
Humans
Protein Binding
Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs
/ genetics
Receptors, Virus
/ chemistry
SARS-CoV-2
/ genetics
South Africa
/ epidemiology
Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
/ chemistry
United Kingdom
/ epidemiology
ACE2
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
UK and South African variants
in silico stability prediction
spike
Journal
International journal of molecular sciences
ISSN: 1422-0067
Titre abrégé: Int J Mol Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101092791
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Feb 2021
08 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
25
01
2021
revised:
03
02
2021
accepted:
04
02
2021
entrez:
11
2
2021
pubmed:
12
2
2021
medline:
20
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
SARS-CoV-2 exploits angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a receptor to invade cells. It has been reported that the UK and South African strains may have higher transmission capabilities, eventually in part due to amino acid substitutions on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. The pathogenicity seems modified but is still under investigation. Here we used the experimental structure of the Spike RBD domain co-crystallized with part of the ACE2 receptor, several in silico methods and numerous experimental data reported recently to analyze the possible impacts of three amino acid replacements (Spike K417N, E484K, N501Y) with regard to ACE2 binding. We found that the N501Y replacement in this region of the interface (present in both the UK and South African strains) should be favorable for the interaction with ACE2, while the K417N and E484K substitutions (South African strain) would seem neutral or even unfavorable. It is unclear if the N501Y substitution in the South African strain could counterbalance the K417N and E484K Spike replacements with regard to ACE2 binding. Our finding suggests that the UK strain should have higher affinity toward ACE2 and therefore likely increased transmissibility and possibly pathogenicity. If indeed the South African strain has a high transmission level, this could be due to the N501Y replacement and/or to substitutions in regions located outside the direct Spike-ACE2 interface but not so much to the K417N and E484K replacements. Yet, it should be noted that amino acid changes at Spike position 484 can lead to viral escape from neutralizing antibodies. Further, these amino acid substitutions do not seem to induce major structural changes in this region of the Spike protein. This structure-function study allows us to rationalize some observations made for the UK strain but raises questions for the South African strain.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33567580
pii: ijms22041695
doi: 10.3390/ijms22041695
pmc: PMC7915722
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Neutralizing
0
Antibodies, Viral
0
Receptors, Virus
0
Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
0
spike protein, SARS-CoV-2
0
ACE2 protein, human
EC 3.4.17.23
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2
EC 3.4.17.23
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Science. 2020 Mar 13;367(6483):1260-1263
pubmed: 32075877
Cell. 2016 Nov 3;167(4):1088-1098.e6
pubmed: 27814506
Nat Med. 2021 Apr;27(4):620-621
pubmed: 33558724
Science. 2012 Jun 22;336(6088):1534-41
pubmed: 22723413
Bioinformatics. 2011 Oct 15;27(20):2915-6
pubmed: 21873642
PLoS Biol. 2018 Aug 13;16(8):e3000003
pubmed: 30102691
Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 Jul;42(Web Server issue):W314-9
pubmed: 24829462
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Jul 2;46(W1):W338-W343
pubmed: 29762700
Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2015 Jun;32:18-24
pubmed: 25658850
Nature. 2020 May;581(7807):215-220
pubmed: 32225176
Cell. 2020 May 14;181(4):894-904.e9
pubmed: 32275855
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):221-236
pubmed: 31987001
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 1;35(3):462-469
pubmed: 30020414
J Chem Inf Model. 2021 Jan 25;61(1):26-35
pubmed: 33382611
Protein Sci. 2021 Jan;30(1):60-69
pubmed: 32881105
Cell. 2020 Apr 16;181(2):281-292.e6
pubmed: 32155444
Hum Mutat. 2001 Apr;17(4):263-70
pubmed: 11295823
Cell. 2020 Aug 20;182(4):812-827.e19
pubmed: 32697968
J Transl Med. 2020 Aug 24;18(1):321
pubmed: 32831104
Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 20;10(1):14031
pubmed: 32820179
PLoS Pathog. 2007 Dec;3(12):e201
pubmed: 18069894
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Sep 7;118(36):
pubmed: 34417349
Brief Bioinform. 2021 Mar 22;22(2):1790-1818
pubmed: 32187356
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2020 Apr;8(4):e1166
pubmed: 32096919
Adv Virus Res. 2016;96:29-57
pubmed: 27712627
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 15;35(4):694-695
pubmed: 30101282
PLoS Pathog. 2010 Jul 22;6(7):e1001005
pubmed: 20661479
Protein Sci. 2021 Jan;30(1):70-82
pubmed: 32881101
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Apr;5(4):562-569
pubmed: 32094589
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 30;117(26):15193-15199
pubmed: 32522874
Hum Mutat. 2009 May;30(5):703-14
pubmed: 19267389
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 May 26;117(21):11727-11734
pubmed: 32376634
Bioinformatics. 2020 Apr 1;36(7):2284-2285
pubmed: 31808797
J Mol Biol. 2013 Nov 1;425(21):3949-63
pubmed: 23867278
Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2002 Jun;3(3):341-64
pubmed: 12188900
Cell. 2020 Sep 3;182(5):1295-1310.e20
pubmed: 32841599
BMC Bioinformatics. 2021 Jan 6;22(1):4
pubmed: 33407073
Cell Host Microbe. 2021 Jan 13;29(1):44-57.e9
pubmed: 33259788
Biochimie. 2021 Jan;180:143-148
pubmed: 33181224
J Mol Biol. 2019 May 17;431(11):2197-2212
pubmed: 30995449
Science. 2020 Mar 27;367(6485):1444-1448
pubmed: 32132184
New Microbes New Infect. 2020 Apr 04;35:100673
pubmed: 32292587
Biochimie. 2020 Jul;174:30-33
pubmed: 32305506
Cell. 2020 Apr 16;181(2):271-280.e8
pubmed: 32142651