Microbial GWAS studies revealing combinations of Omicron RBD mutations existed and may contribute to antibody evasion and ACE2 binding
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Since Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in South Africa (SA), it has now dominated in United Kingdom (UK) of Europe and United State (USA) of North America. A prominent feature of this variant is the gathering of spike protein mutations, in particularly at the receptor binding domain (RBD). These RBD mutations essentially contribute to antibody resistance of current immune approaches. During global spillover, combinations of RBD mutations may exist and synergistically contribute to antibody resistance in fact. Using three geographic-stratified genome wide association studies (GWAS), we observed that RBD combinations exhibited a geographic pattern and genetical associated, such as five common mutations in both UK and USA Omicron, six or two specific mutations in UK or USA Omicron. Although the UK specific RBD mutations can be further classified into two separated sub-groups of combination based on linkage disequilibrium analysis. Functional analysis indicated that the common RBD combinations (fold change, -11.59) alongside UK or USA specific mutations significantly reduced neutralization (fold change, -38.72, -18.11). As RBD overlaps with angiotensin converting enzyme 2(ACE2) binding motif, protein-protein contact analysis indicated that the common RBD mutations enhanced ACE2 binding accessibility and were further strengthened by UK or USA-specific RBD mutations. Spatiotemporal evolution analysis indicated that UK-specific RBD mutations largely contribute to global spillover. Collectively, we have provided genetic evidence of RBD combinations and estimated their effects on antibody evasion and ACE2 binding accessibility.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.19.22269510: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:- Thank you for including a …
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.19.22269510: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:- 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.
-
