Omicron: A Heavily Mutated SARS-CoV-2 Variant Exhibits Stronger Binding to ACE2 and Potently Escapes Approved COVID-19 Therapeutic Antibodies

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

The new SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern “Omicron” was recently spotted in South Africa and spread quickly around the world due to its enhanced transmissibility. The variant became conspicuous as it harbors more than 30 mutations in the Spike protein with 15 mutations in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) alone, potentially dampening the potency of therapeutic antibodies and enhancing the ACE2 binding. More worrying, Omicron infections have been reported in vaccinees in South Africa and Hong Kong, and that post-vaccination sera poorly neutralize the new variant. Here, we investigated the binding strength of Omicron with ACE2 and monoclonal antibodies that are either approved by the FDA for COVID-19 therapy or undergoing phase III clinical trials. Computational mutagenesis and free energy perturbation could confirm that Omicron RBD binds ACE2 ~2.5 times stronger than prototype SARS-CoV-2. Notably, three substitutions, i.e., T478K, Q493K, and Q498R, significantly contribute to the binding energies and almost doubled the electrostatic potential (ELE) of the RBD Omic –ACE2 complex. Omicron also harbors E484A substitution instead of the E484K that helped neutralization escape of Beta, Gamma, and Mu variants. Together, T478K, Q493K, Q498R, and E484A substitutions contribute to a significant drop in the ELE between RBD Omic –mAbs, particularly in etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and CT-p59. AZD1061 showed a slight drop in ELE and sotrovimab that binds a conserved epitope on the RBD; therefore, it could be used as a cocktail therapy in Omicron-driven COVID-19. In conclusion, we suggest that the Spike mutations prudently devised by the virus facilitate the receptor binding, weakening the mAbs binding to escape the immune response.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.04.471200: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Computational tools used in this project: For protein structure visualization VMD (20), Pymol (https://pymol.org), and Chimaera Chimera (21) packages were used.
    Pymol
    suggested: (PyMOL, RRID:SCR_000305)
    The neutralized systems were energy minimized in GROMACS 2019.6 (23) using CHARMM37 force field (24) and steep descent algorithm.
    GROMACS
    suggested: (GROMACS, RRID:SCR_014565)

    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: 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.


    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.