Computational Prediction of the Comprehensive SARS-CoV-2 vs. Human Interactome to Guide the Design of Therapeutics

  1. Kevin Dick
  2. Kyle K. Biggar
  3. James R. Green

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Understanding the disease pathogenesis of the novel coronavirus, denoted SARS-CoV-2, is critical to the development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics. The global propagation of the viral disease, denoted COVID-19 (“coronavirus disease 2019”), has unified the scientific community in searching for possible inhibitory small molecules or polypeptides. Given the known interaction between the human ACE2 (“Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2”) protein and the SARS-CoV virus (responsible for the coronavirus outbreak circa . 2003), considerable focus has been directed towards the putative interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and ACE2. However, a more holistic understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 vs. human inter-species interactome promises additional putative protein-protein interactions (PPI) that may be considered targets for the development of inhibitory therapeutics.

To that end, we leverage two state-of-the-art, sequence-based PPI predictors (PIPE4 & SPRINT) capable of generating the comprehensive SARS-CoV-2 vs. human interactome, comprising approximately 285,000 pairwise predictions. Of these, we identify the high-scoring subset of human proteins predicted to interact with each of the 14 SARS-CoV-2 proteins by both methods, comprising 279 high-confidence putative interactions involving 225 human proteins. Notably, the Spike-ACE2 interaction was the highest ranked for both the PIPE4 and SPRINT predictors, corroborating existing evidence for this PPI. Furthermore, the PIPE-Sites algorithm was used to predict the putative subsequence that might mediate each interaction and thereby inform the design of inhibitory polypeptides intended to disrupt the corresponding host-pathogen interactions.

We hereby publicly release the comprehensive set of PPI predictions and their corresponding PIPE-Sites landscapes in the following DataVerse repository: 10.5683/SP2/JZ77XA. All data and metadata are released under a CC-BY 4.0 licence. The information provided represents theoretical modeling only and caution should be exercised in its use. It is intended as a resource for the scientific community at large in furthering our understanding of SARS-CoV-2.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.29.014381: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The molecular function, biological pathway, and cellular pathway p-values were determined with the Fisher’s Exact test implemented in the PANTHER Go software [12].
    PANTHER
    suggested: (PANTHER, RRID:SCR_004869)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • No conflict of interest statement was detected. If there are no conflicts, we encourage authors to explicit state so.
    • 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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.29.014381v1 on bioRxiv