Impact of South African 501.V2 Variant on SARS-CoV-2 Spike Infectivity and Neutralization: A Structure-based Computational Assessment

  1. Mary Hongying Cheng
  2. James M Krieger
  3. Burak Kaynak
  4. Moshe Arditi
  5. Ivet Bahar

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Motivation

The SARS-CoV-2 variants emerging from South Africa (501.V2) and the UK (B.1.1.7) necessitate rapid assessment of the effects of the corresponding amino acid substitutions in the spike (S) receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the variants on the interactions with the human ACE2 receptor and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reported earlier to neutralize the spike.

Results

Molecular modeling and simulations reveal that N501Y, shared by both variants, increases ACE2 binding affinity, and may impact the collective dynamics of the ACE2-RBD complex, occupying a central hinge site that modulates the overall dynamics of the complex. In contrast, the substitutions K417N and E484K in the South African variant 501.V2 would reduce the ACE2-binding affinity by abolishing two interfacial salt bridges that facilitate RBD binding to ACE2, K417(S)-D30(ACE2) and E484 (S)-K31(ACE2). These two mutations may thus be more than compensating the attractive effect induced by N501Y, overall resulting in an ACE2-binding affinity comparable to that of the wildtype RBD. Further analysis of the impact of these mutations on the interactions with mAbs targeting the spike indicate that the substitutions K417N and E484K may also abolish the salt bridges between the spike and selected mAbs, such as REGN10933, BD23, H11_H4, and C105, thus reducing the binding affinity and effectiveness of these mAbs.

Contact

bahar@pitt.edu

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.10.426143: (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 page 5. 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.

    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 10.1101/2021.01.10.426143v1 on bioRxiv