4.5 Article

On the interactions of the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins with monoclonal antibodies and the receptor ACE2

期刊

VIRUS RESEARCH
卷 285, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198021

关键词

Epitopes; Binding affinity; Antibody development; Host-pathogen interaction; Electrostatic interactions; Antigenic analysis; Computer simulation; pH effect; Coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; ACE2; Protein-protein interaction

类别

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [Fapesp 2015/16116-3]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Swedish Science Council
  4. Ministry of Research and Innovation of Romania (CNCS -UEFISCDI within PNCDI III) [PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new betacoronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 has emerged as a new threat to global health and economy. A promising target for both diagnosis and therapeutics treatments of the new disease named COVID-19 is the coronavirus (CoV) spike (S) glycoprotein. By constant-pH Monte Carlo simulations and the PROCEEDpKa method, we have mapped the electrostatic epitopes for four monoclonal antibodies and the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) on both SARS-CoV-1 and the new SARS-CoV-2 S receptor binding domain (RBD) proteins. We also calculated free energy of interactions and shown that the S RBD proteins from both SARS viruses binds to ACE2 with similar affinities. However, the affinity between the S RBD protein from the new SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2 is higher than for any studied antibody previously found complexed with SARS-CoV-1. Based on physical chemical analysis and free energies estimates, we can shed some light on the involved molecular recognition processes, their clinical aspects, the implications for drug developments, and suggest structural modifications on the CR3022 antibody that would improve its binding affinities for SARS-CoV-2 and contribute to address the ongoing international health crisis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据