4.5 Article

Recognition of Divergent Viral Substrates by the SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease

期刊

ACS INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 2591-2595

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.1c00237

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; Mpro; protease; virology

资金

  1. Massachusetts Consortium for Pathogen Readiness
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  3. Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation
  4. NIH [P30 GM 124165]
  5. DOE Office of Science [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2 plays a key role in viral replication by cleaving viral polyproteins at specific sites, and its interactions with substrates can have significant effects on catalytic efficiency. The study provides insights into potential targets for antiviral drug design and highlights the importance of finely tuned substrate-dependent catalytic parameters in the coronavirus lifecycle.
The main protease (Mpro) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), is an ideal target for pharmaceutical inhibition. Mpro is conserved among coronaviruses and distinct from human proteases. Viral replication depends on the cleavage of the viral polyprotein at multiple sites. We present crystal structures of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro bound to two viral sub-strate peptides. The structures show how Mpro recognizes distinct substrates and how subtle changes in substrate accommodation can drive large changes in catalytic efficiency. One peptide, constituting the junction between viral nonstructural proteins 8 and 9 (nsp8/9), has P1' and P2' residues that are unique among the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro cleavage sites but conserved among homologous junctions in coronaviruses. Mpro cleaves nsp8/9 inefficiently, and amino acid substitutions at P1' or P2' can enhance catalysis. Visualization of Mpro with intact substrates provides new templates for antiviral drug design and suggests that the coronavirus lifecycle selects for finely tuned substrate-dependent catalytic parameters.

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