Computational modeling of the effect of five mutations on the structure of the ACE2 receptor and their correlation with infectivity and virulence of some emerged variants of SARS-CoV-2 suggests mechanisms of binding affinity dysregulation.
ACE2-SARS-CoV-2
Alpha
Beta
Binding affinity
Delta
Omicron
Journal
Chemico-biological interactions
ISSN: 1872-7786
Titre abrégé: Chem Biol Interact
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 0227276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2022
01 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
09
05
2022
revised:
11
10
2022
accepted:
24
10
2022
pubmed:
7
11
2022
medline:
29
11
2022
entrez:
6
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Interactions between the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and the RBD region of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein are critical for virus entry into the host cell. The objective of this work was to identify some of the most relevant SARS-CoV-2 Spike variants that emerged during the pandemic and evaluate their binding affinity with human variants of ACE2 since some ACE2 variants can enhance or reduce the affinity of the interaction between the ACE2 and S proteins. However, no information has been sought to extrapolate to different variants of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, to understand the impact on the affinity of the interaction between ACE2 protein variants and SARS-CoV-2 protein S variants, molecular docking was used in this study to predict the effects of five mutations of ACE2 when they interact with Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron variants and a hypothetical variant, which present mutations in the RBD region of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. Our results suggest that these variants could alter the interaction of the Spike and the human ACE2 protein, losing or creating new inter-protein contacts, enhancing viral fitness by improving binding affinity, and leading to an increase in infectivity, virulence, and transmission. This investigation highlighted that the S19P mutation of ACE2 decreases the binding affinity between the ACE2 and Spike proteins in the presence of the Beta variant and the wild-type variant of SARS-CoV-2 isolated in Wuhan-2019. The R115Q mutation of ACE2 lowers the binding affinity of these two proteins in the presence of the Beta and Delta variants. Similarly, the K26R mutation lowers the affinity of the interaction between the ACE2 and Spike proteins in the presence of the Alpha variant. This decrease in binding affinity is probably due to the lack of interaction between some of the key residues of the interaction complex between the ACE2 protein and the RBD region of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. Therefore, ACE2 mutations appear in the presence of these variants, they could suggest an intrinsic resistance to COVID-19 disease. On the other hand, our results suggested that the K26R, M332L, and K341R mutations of ACE2 expressively showed the affinity between the ACE2 and Spike proteins in the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants. Consequently, these ACE2 mutations in the presence of the Alpha, Beta, and delta variants of SARS-CoV-2 could be more infectious and virulent in human cells compared to the SARS-CoV-2 isolated in Wuhan-2019 and it could have a negative prognosis of the disease. Finally, the Omicron variant in interaction with ACE2 WT, S19P, R115Q, M332L, and K341R mutations of ACE2 showed a significant decrease in binding affinity. This could be consistent that the Omicron variant causes less severe symptoms than previous variants. On the other hand, our results suggested Omicron in the complex with K26R, the binding affinity is increased between ACE2/RBD, which could indicate a negative prognosis of the disease in people with these allelic conditions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36336003
pii: S0009-2797(22)00449-5
doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2022.110244
pmc: PMC9630301
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2
EC 3.4.17.23
Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A
EC 3.4.15.1
Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
0
spike protein, SARS-CoV-2
0
Viral Envelope Proteins
0
ACE2 protein, human
EC 3.4.17.23
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
110244Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14 Suppl 2:S5
pubmed: 23369171
J Virol. 2015 Feb;89(4):1954-64
pubmed: 25428871
Bioinformatics. 2008 Sep 15;24(18):2002-9
pubmed: 18632749
Science. 2020 Mar 27;367(6485):1444-1448
pubmed: 32132184
Lancet. 2021 Jun 26;397(10293):2461-2462
pubmed: 34139198
Cell. 2021 May 27;184(11):2939-2954.e9
pubmed: 33852911
Science. 2020 Mar 13;367(6483):1260-1263
pubmed: 32075877
J Phys Chem B. 2021 Jun 3;125(21):5537-5548
pubmed: 33979162
J Med Virol. 2020 Sep;92(9):1580-1586
pubmed: 32249956
Science. 2020 Sep 4;369(6508):1261-1265
pubmed: 32753553
Elife. 2020 Oct 28;9:
pubmed: 33112236
Nat Microbiol. 2021 Sep;6(9):1188-1198
pubmed: 34400835
Commun Biol. 2021 Apr 12;4(1):475
pubmed: 33846513
Cell. 2021 Jun 24;184(13):3426-3437.e8
pubmed: 33991487
J Chem Inf Model. 2021 Sep 27;61(9):4425-4441
pubmed: 34428371
Cureus. 2021 Aug 5;13(8):e16905
pubmed: 34513478
Cell Mol Immunol. 2020 Jun;17(6):621-630
pubmed: 32415260
Cell Discov. 2020 Feb 24;6:11
pubmed: 32133153
Nat Protoc. 2020 May;15(5):1829-1852
pubmed: 32269383
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):434-443
pubmed: 32461654
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Jul 10;22(14):
pubmed: 34299045
Nature. 2002 Jun 20;417(6891):822-8
pubmed: 12075344
EMBO J. 2005 Apr 20;24(8):1634-43
pubmed: 15791205
Cell Host Microbe. 2021 Mar 10;29(3):477-488.e4
pubmed: 33535027
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 17;11(1):12740
pubmed: 34140558
Science. 2020 Sep 25;369(6511):1603-1607
pubmed: 32732280
MedComm (2020). 2021 Dec 16;2(4):838-845
pubmed: 34957469
Biochem J. 2021 Oct 15;478(19):3671-3684
pubmed: 34558627
Infection. 2021 Apr;49(2):199-213
pubmed: 32886331
Proteins. 2002 May 15;47(3):393-402
pubmed: 11948792
Nature. 2021 Apr;592(7855):616-622
pubmed: 33567448
Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020 Nov 3;5(1):258
pubmed: 33144565
Nat Commun. 2022 Sep 21;13(1):5440
pubmed: 36130929
Cell. 2021 Apr 15;184(8):2201-2211.e7
pubmed: 33743891
Cell. 2020 Sep 3;182(5):1295-1310.e20
pubmed: 32841599
Nature. 2022 Feb;602(7898):657-663
pubmed: 35016194
Biochimie. 2021 Jan;180:143-148
pubmed: 33181224
Nature. 2021 May;593(7858):270-274
pubmed: 33723411
Elife. 2015 Jul 20;4:e07454
pubmed: 26193119
World J Clin Cases. 2022 Jan 7;10(1):1-11
pubmed: 35071500
Heliyon. 2021 Feb;7(2):e06133
pubmed: 33532652
Bioinformatics. 2020 Mar 1;36(6):1765-1771
pubmed: 31697312
Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2020;18:3402-3414
pubmed: 33200028
Genomics. 2022 Sep;114(5):110466
pubmed: 36041637
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 1;34(Web Server issue):W239-42
pubmed: 16845001
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 May;94:91-95
pubmed: 32173574
Cell. 2020 Sep 3;182(5):1284-1294.e9
pubmed: 32730807
N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 12;385(7):585-594
pubmed: 34289274
Glob Chall. 2017 Jan 10;1(1):33-46
pubmed: 31565258
RSC Adv. 2022 Mar 4;12(12):7318-7327
pubmed: 35424688
FASEB J. 2020 Jul;34(7):8787-8795
pubmed: 32525600
Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022 Jan 5;7(1):8
pubmed: 34987150
Bioinformatics. 2016 Dec 1;32(23):3676-3678
pubmed: 27503228
Cell. 2020 Apr 16;181(2):271-280.e8
pubmed: 32142651
J Chem Inf Model. 2021 Dec 27;61(12):6079-6084
pubmed: 34806876
JAMA. 2021 Aug 13;:
pubmed: 34387645
Nature. 2020 May;581(7807):215-220
pubmed: 32225176
Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Nov;28(11):1602-1614
pubmed: 32681121