Binding of human ACE2 and RBD of Omicron enhanced by unique interaction patterns among SARS‐CoV ‐2 variants of concern

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), the virus causing COVID‐19, has continued to mutate and spread worldwide despite global vaccination efforts. In particular, the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa in late November 2021, has become the dominant strain worldwide. Compared to the original strain identified in Wuhan, Omicron features 50 genetic mutations, with 15 mutations in the receptor‐binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein, which binds to the human angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for viral entry. However, it is not completely understood how these mutations alter the interaction and binding strength between the Omicron RBD and ACE2. In this study, we used a combined steered molecular dynamics (SMD) simulation and experimental microscale thermophoresis (MST) approach to quantify the interaction between Omicron RBD and ACE2. We report that the Omicron brings an enhanced RBD‐ACE2 interface through N501Y, Q498R, and T478K mutations; the changes further lead to unique interaction patterns, reminiscing the features of previously dominated variants, Alpha (N501Y) and Delta (L452R and T478K). Among the Q493K and Q493R, we report that Q493R shows stronger binding to ACE2 than Q493K due to increased interactions. Our MST data confirmed that the Omicron mutations in RBD are associated with a five‐fold higher binding affinity to ACE2 compared to the RBD of the original strain. In conclusion, our results could help explain the Omicron variant's prevalence in human populations, as higher interaction forces or affinity for ACE2 likely promote greater viral binding and internalization, leading to increased infectivity.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.24.477633: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on pages 9, 3 and 6. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.