4.6 Article

Evolutionary and structural analysis elucidates mutations on SARS-CoV2 spike protein with altered human ACE2 binding affinity

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.11.075

关键词

Spike glycoprotein; ACE2; Population variants; Selection; Binding free energy

资金

  1. Microsoft AI for Health program [00011000243]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identifies selective SARS-CoV2 spike RBD variants through evolutionary analysis and protein docking calculations, showing differential binding affinities with ACE2. Some variants exhibit reduced ACE2 affinity, while others demonstrate increased affinity towards ACE2.
The recognition of ACE2 by the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of spike protein mediates host cell entry. The objective of the work is to identify SARS-CoV2 spike variants that emerged during the pandemic and evaluate their binding affinity with ACE2. Evolutionary analysis of 2178 SARS-CoV2 genomes identifies RBD variants that are under selection bias. The binding efficacy of these RBD variants to the ACE2 has been analyzed by using protein-protein docking and binding free energy calculations. Pan-proteomic analysis reveals 113 mutations among them 33 are parsimonious. Evolutionary analysis reveals five RBD variants A348T, V367F, G476S, V483A, and S494P are under strong positive selection bias. Variations at these sites alter the ACE2 binding affinity. A348T, G476S, and V483A variants display reduced affinity to ACE2 in comparison to the Wuhan SARS-CoV2 spike protein. While the V367F and S494P population variants display a higher binding affinity towards human ACE2. Reorientation of several crucial residues at the RBD-ACE2 interface facilitates additional hydrogen bond formation for the V367F variant which enhances the binding energy during ACE2 recognition. On the other hand, the enhanced binding affinity of S494P is attributed to strong interfacial complementarity between the RBD and ACE2. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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