The XBB.1.5 slightly increase the binding affinity for host receptor ACE2 and exhibit strongest immune escaping features: molecular modeling and free energy calculation

Introduction: The current XBB variant of SARS-CoV-2 with the strongest immune escaping properties is currently the most dominant variant circulating around the world. With the emergence of XBB global morbidities and mortalities have raised again. In the current scenario, it was highly required to delineate the binding capabilities of NTD of XBB subvariant towards human neutralizing antibodies and to dig out the binding affinity of RBD of XBB subvariant with ACE2 receptor. Materials and Methods: The current study uses molecular interaction and simulation-based approaches to decipher the binding mechanism of RBD with ACE2 and mAb interaction with NTD of the spike protein. Results: Molecular docking of the Wild type NTD with mAb revealed a docking score of −113.2 ± 0.7 kcal/mol while XBB NTD docking with mAb reported −76.2 ± 2.3 kcal/mol. On the other hand, wild-type RBD and XBB RBD with ACE2 receptor demonstrated docking scores of −115.0 ± 1.5 kcal/mol and −120.8 ± 3.4 kcal/mol respectively. Moreover, the interaction network analysis also revealed significant variations in the number of hydrogen bonds, salt-bridges, and non-bonded contacts. These findings were further validated by computing the dissociation constant (KD). Molecular simulation analysis such as RMSD, RMSF, Rg and hydrogen bonding analysis revealed variation in the dynamics features of the RBD and NTD complexes due to the acquired mutations. Furthermore, the total binding energy for the wild-type RBD in complex with ACE2 reported −50.10 kcal/mol while XBB-RBD coupled with ACE2 reported −52.66 kcal/mol respectively. This shows though the binding of XBB is slightly increased but due to the variation in the bonding network and other factors makes the XBB variant to enter into the host cell efficiently than the wild type. On the other hand, the total binding free energy for the wildtype NTD-mAb was calculated to be −65.94 kcal/mol while for XBB NTD-mAb was reported to be −35.06 kcal/mol respectively. The significant difference in the total binding energy factors explains that the XBB variant possess stronger immune evasion properties than the others variants and wild type. Conclusions: The current study provides structural features for the XBB variant binding and immune evasion which can be used to design novel therapeutics.

[1]  H. Zhang,et al.  Life meaning constructed from dignity therapy in traditional Chinese culture: A qualitative analysis of dignity therapy generativity documents. , 2022, Palliative & Supportive Care.

[2]  Jing Zhao,et al.  Neutralization sensitivity, fusogenicity, and infectivity of Omicron subvariants , 2022, Genome Medicine.

[3]  A. Gordon,et al.  Alarming antibody evasion properties of rising SARS-CoV-2 BQ and XBB subvariants , 2022, Cell.

[4]  Y. Waheed,et al.  Structural communication fingerprinting and dynamic investigation of RBD-hACE2 complex from BA.1 × AY.4 recombinant variant (Deltacron) of SARS-CoV-2 to decipher the structural basis for enhanced transmission , 2022, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[5]  Qian Wang,et al.  Resistance of SARS-CoV-2 omicron subvariant BA.4.6 to antibody neutralisation , 2022, bioRxiv.

[6]  Qian Wang,et al.  Antigenic characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant BA.2.75 , 2022, bioRxiv.

[7]  R. Bull,et al.  Evolution of the SARS‐CoV‐2 omicron variants BA.1 to BA.5: Implications for immune escape and transmission , 2022, Reviews in medical virology.

[8]  Qian Wang,et al.  Antibody evasion by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 , 2022, Nature.

[9]  O. Pybus,et al.  Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 in South Africa , 2022, Nature Medicine.

[10]  H. Jäck,et al.  SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages show comparable cell entry but differential neutralization by therapeutic antibodies , 2022, Cell Host & Microbe.

[11]  T. Zhou,et al.  Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sub-lineages BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2 , 2022, Cell Host & Microbe.

[12]  Ben Hu,et al.  Author Correction: Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 , 2022, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[13]  Syed Shujait Ali,et al.  The Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 binds to the hACE2 receptor more strongly and escapes the antibody response: Insights from structural and simulation data , 2022, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules.

[14]  Jordan J. Clark,et al.  Activity of convalescent and vaccine serum against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron , 2021, Nature.

[15]  P. Maes,et al.  Considerable escape of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron to antibody neutralization , 2021, Nature.

[16]  Fei Shao,et al.  Omicron escapes the majority of existing SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies , 2021, bioRxiv.

[17]  M. Kraemer,et al.  Rapid epidemic expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in southern Africa , 2021, Nature.

[18]  Liyuan Liu,et al.  Striking antibody evasion manifested by the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 , 2021, Nature.

[19]  Heidi Ledford,et al.  How bad is Omicron? What scientists know so far , 2021, Nature.

[20]  J. Thornton,et al.  PDBsum extras: SARS‐CoV‐2 and AlphaFold models , 2021, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[21]  Syed Shujait Ali,et al.  Bioinformatics analysis of the differences in the binding profile of the wild-type and mutants of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants with the ACE2 receptor , 2021, Computers in Biology and Medicine.

[22]  Dongqing Wei,et al.  The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.618 variant slightly alters the spike RBD–ACE2 binding affinity and is an antibody escaping variant: a computational structural perspective , 2021, RSC advances.

[23]  Syed Shujait Ali,et al.  Preliminary Structural Data Revealed That the SARS‐CoV‐2 B.1.617 Variant's RBD Binds to ACE2 Receptor Stronger Than the Wild Type to Enhance the Infectivity , 2021, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[24]  M. Davenport,et al.  Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection , 2021, Nature Medicine.

[25]  Syed Shujait Ali,et al.  Higher infectivity of the SARS‐CoV‐2 new variants is associated with K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y mutants: An insight from structural data , 2021, Journal of cellular physiology.

[26]  N. Turok,et al.  A pooled testing strategy for identifying SARS-CoV-2 at low prevalence , 2020, Nature.

[27]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  UCSF ChimeraX: Structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers , 2020, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[28]  Shuwen Liu,et al.  Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19 , 2020, Acta Pharmacologica Sinica.

[29]  Huiyong Sun,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 9. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-peptide complexes. , 2019, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[30]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  PRODIGY: a web server for predicting the binding affinity of protein-protein complexes , 2016, Bioinform..

[31]  Duncan Poole,et al.  Routine Microsecond Molecular Dynamics Simulations with AMBER on GPUs. 2. Explicit Solvent Particle Mesh Ewald. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[32]  Daniel R Roe,et al.  PTRAJ and CPPTRAJ: Software for Processing and Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Trajectory Data. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[33]  Ross C. Walker,et al.  An overview of the Amber biomolecular simulation package , 2013 .

[34]  Duncan Poole,et al.  Routine Microsecond Molecular Dynamics Simulations with AMBER on GPUs. 1. Generalized Born , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[35]  Michele Magrane,et al.  UniProt Knowledgebase: a hub of integrated protein data , 2011, Database J. Biol. Databases Curation.

[36]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  The Amber biomolecular simulation programs , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[37]  C. Dominguez,et al.  HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[38]  S. Watowich,et al.  A stable, rapidly converging conjugate gradient method for energy minimization , 1988 .

[39]  J. Meza,et al.  Steepest descent , 2010 .

[40]  Narayanan Eswar,et al.  Protein structure modeling with MODELLER. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.