4.8 Article

Immunogenicity and structures of a rationally designed prefusion MERS-CoV spike antigen

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1707304114

关键词

coronavirus; neutralizing antibody; cryo-EM; X-ray crystallography; peplomer

资金

  1. NIH [HHSN261200800001E, 6x142]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  3. US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  4. DOE, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-AC02-76SF00515]
  5. DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  6. NIH, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [P41GM103393]
  7. [P20GM113132]
  8. [R01AI127521]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is a lineage C betacoronavirus that since its emergence in 2012 has caused outbreaks in human populations with case-fatality rates of similar to 36%. As in other coronaviruses, the spike (S) glycoprotein of MERS-CoV mediates receptor recognition and membrane fusion and is the primary target of the humoral immune response during infection. Here we use structure-based design to develop a generalizable strategy for retaining coronavirus S proteins in the antigenically optimal prefusion conformation and demonstrate that our engineered immunogen is able to elicit high neutralizing antibody titers against MERS-CoV. We also determined high-resolution structures of the trimeric MERS-CoV S ectodomain in complex with G4, a stem-directed neutralizing antibody. The structures reveal that G4 recognizes a glycosylated loop that is variable among coronaviruses and they define four conformational states of the trimer wherein each receptor-binding domain is either tightly packed at the membrane-distal apex or rotated into a receptor-accessible conformation. Our studies suggest a potential mechanism for fusion initiation through sequential receptor-binding events and provide a foundation for the structure-based design of coronavirus vaccines.

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

4.8
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