Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2024 May 7;12:RP92063. doi: 10.7554/eLife.92063

Some mechanistic underpinnings of molecular adaptations of SARS-COV-2 spike protein by integrating candidate adaptive polymorphisms with protein dynamics

Nicholas James Ose 1, Paul Campitelli 1, Tushar Modi 1, I Can Kazan 1, Sudhir Kumar 2,3,4,, Sefika Banu Ozkan 1,
Editors: Donald Hamelberg5, Qiang Cui6
PMCID: PMC11076047  PMID: 38713502

Abstract

We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.

Research organism: Human

Introduction

Since 2019, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in humans has been characterized by the spread of mutations, many notably found within the spike (S) glycoprotein. The S protein is directly related to the human immune response to COVID-19 and, as such, has been one of the most studied and targeted proteins in SARS-CoV-2 research (Shang et al., 2020; Harvey et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 2022; Carabelli et al., 2023; Markov et al., 2023). Subsequently, research into the biophysical properties and mutational patterns associated with S protein evolution not only remains critical to understanding the pandemic but also emerges as a useful system to understand the mechanics of molecular adaptation within viruses.

For successful infection of a human host, the S glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 binds to the human ACE2 (hACE2) receptor through its receptor-binding domain (RBD). Evidence indicates that fine-tuning S protein interactions with hACE2 significantly affects viral reproduction (Rehman et al., 2020; Saputri et al., 2020; Rochman et al., 2021). Previous evolutionary studies show a complex network of interactions among mutated residues (Changeux and Edelstein, 2005; Doshi et al., 2016; O’Rourke et al., 2016; Mishra and Jernigan, 2018). Therefore, there has been a vast effort to uncover which mutations are important steps of adaptation for the S protein (Cagliani et al., 2020; Damas et al., 2020; Singh and Yi, 2021; Kistler et al., 2022; Maher et al., 2022; Neher, 2022). In particular, a significant aspect of many such studies was a focus on understanding adaptive mutations of SARS-CoV-2 that contributed to the leap to human hosts (Cagliani et al., 2020; Damas et al., 2020; Singh and Yi, 2021; Starr et al., 2022c). This is because SARS-CoV-2 has continuously mutated since its early detection (Kistler et al., 2022), causing the emergence of CDC-designated ‘variants of concern’ (VOCs) that may be driven by an accelerated substitution rate (Tay et al., 2022).

Predicting how new mutations impact the biophysical properties of the S protein remains a challenge, let alone explaining their complex interactions with one another and how they might affect hACE2 binding; many factors affect hACE2 interactions. Binding affinity with hACE2 can be enhanced directly through stronger receptor interactions or mediated through changes in RBD opening (Teruel et al., 2021b; Zhang et al., 2021; Díaz-Salinas et al., 2022). The RBD exhibits both ‘closed’ and ‘open’ conformational states. In the closed state, the RBD is shielded from receptor binding. In the open state, the RBD is accessible for hACE2 binding (Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016; Gur et al., 2020; Henderson et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2020). While some mutations may affect the transition between these states (Henderson et al., 2020; Yurkovetskiy et al., 2020; Gobeil et al., 2021a; Sztain et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Shoemark et al., 2022), other mutations may allosterically regulate RBD openings through Furin cleavage site (residue ID range: 681–695) interactions to regulate hACE2 binding (Deng et al., 2021; Gobeil et al., 2021b; Khan et al., 2021; Laiton-Donato et al., 2021).

Moreover, as new mutations accumulate, culminating in the emergence of a new VOC, these mutations must occur on varied sequence backgrounds containing neutral, nearly-neutral, and adaptive mutations. While many studies have explored the impacts of individual mutations, VOCs result in a substantial difference in protein function compared to their individual effects (Moulana et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022c; Moulana et al., 2023; Witte et al., 2023). Here we integrate an evolutionary approach with protein dynamics analysis to address the fundamental mechanisms of mutations dictating VOCs and the impact of their epistatic interaction on the function of the S protein. Many earlier studies have combined phylogeny and evolutionary theory to identify adaptive mutations and analyze how the viral sequence has changed over time (Frost et al., 2018; Boni et al., 2020; Cagliani et al., 2020; Damas et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020). Similarly, we first use a well-established evolutionary probability (EP) approach (Liu et al., 2016) that utilizes phylogenetic trees in combination with the neutral theory of molecular evolution to determine candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) using the early Wuhan sequence as a variant. CAPs are substitutions in SARS-CoV-2 that are rarely observed in other closely related sequences (Figure 1A), which implies a degree of functional importance and makes them candidates for adaptation (Liu et al., 2016). Adaptation in this case means a virus which can successfully infect human hosts. As CAPs are unexpected polymorphisms under neutral theory, their existence implies a non-neutral effect. This can come in the form of functional changes (Liu et al., 2016) or compensation for functional changes (Ose et al., 2022b). Therefore, we suspect that these CAPs may be partially responsible for the functional change allowing the infection of human hosts. In support of this method, we find an overlap between our list of sites containing CAPs and putative adaptive sites identified by others (Cagliani et al., 2020; Singh and Yi, 2021; Kistler et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022b). Second, we use a suite of computational tools to analyze how CAPs that arose in the early and late phases of the COVID-19 pandemic modulate the dynamics of the S protein. We also explore the complex interactions between these sets of CAPs to gain mechanistic insight into the behavior of molecular adaptation involving the S protein. In particular, we focused on how mutations modulate protein dynamics as we and others have previously found that rather than changing a protein’s structure solely, mutations modulate conformational dynamics, leading to changes in biophysical properties such as stability, flexibility, and allosteric dynamic coupling, any of which may affect protein binding (Swint-Kruse et al., 1998; Keskin et al., 2000; Bhabha et al., 2013; Nussinov and Tsai, 2013; Campbell et al., 2016; Ma and Nussinov, 2016; Saavedra et al., 2018; Kuzmanic et al., 2020).

Figure 1. Evolutionary probability (EP) in SARS-CoV-2.

Figure 1.

(A) The EPs of each amino acid in the S protein sequence are calculated by taking the multiple sequence alignment of the S proteins through their evolutionary tree and using Bayesian inferences to determine the likelihood of finding a particular residue at a particular location within a given sequence. Simply, if the residue is found at a location ‘x’ in closely related sequences, it will have a higher EP at location ‘x’ in the target sequence. Residues with an EP < 0.05 in the target sequence are candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) (red). CAPs are found at sites 32, 50, 218, 346, 372, 478, 486, 498, 519, 604, 681, 682, 683, 684, and 1125. (B) The distribution of EP scores of the wild-type residues in the S protein. Here, lower EP scores are shown in red, and higher EP scores in blue. While the vast majority of the wild-type (reference) protein consists of high EP residues, a few residues have low EP. (C) The CAPs are also highlighted as red spheres in the open configuration of the S protein, with the open chain in a darker shade. We observe that a majority of the CAP positions reside at the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and the Furin cleavage site (676-689; Wrobel et al., 2020) shown as transparent light gray spheres.

With this evolutionary-dynamics unified approach, we aim to answer the following questions about VOCs: Are all the mutations in VOCs adaptive in nature? Are they coupled to one another or provide some measure of biophysical, dynamical, or mechanical epistasis? While many of these mutations are found within the RBD, numerous others are located distal to this region; hence, we aim to investigate the functional roles of distal mutations, particularly from a protein dynamics perspective. Our integrated analysis revealed that protein dynamics play a significant role in the evolution of the S protein. The flexibility of sites within the S protein shows a strong, direct correlation with substitution rate, and newly evolving CAPS are mostly additive mutations that modulate the dynamics of the hACE2 binding site. Yet other CAPs, 346R, 486F, and 498Q, show highly epistatic (i.e., non-additive) modulation of the hACE2 binding site and provide immune escape benefits.

Results and discussion

Candidate adaptive mutations in the S protein are recognized via EPs

SARS-CoV-2 is part of a family of coronaviruses, many of which infect mainly animals and are less capable of infecting humans (Dicken et al., 2021). Therefore, to identify the most likely mutations responsible for the infection of human hosts (i.e., putative adaptive mutations for humans), we estimated the (neutral) EP scores of mutations found within the S protein (Liu et al., 2016). EP scores of the amino acid variants of the S protein were obtained using a maximum likelihood phylogeny (Kumar et al., 2018) built from 19 orthologous coronavirus sequences. Sequences were selected by examining available non-human sequences with a sequence identity of 70% or above to the human SARS CoV-2’s S protein sequence. This cutoff allows for divergence over evolutionary history such that each amino acid position had ample time to experience purifying selection, whilst limiting ourselves to closely related coronaviruses. (Figure 1A). The likelihood of finding a particular amino acid in the sequence is then determined using a Bayesian framework, with calculations carried out by MEGA X software (Kumar et al., 2018). As apparent in the name, EP scores obtained for the amino acids in the sequence provide information regarding the likelihood of finding them at their position, given the history of the sequence. Amino acid residues receiving low EP scores (<0.05) at a position are less likely to be found in a given position within the sequence because they are non-neutral. Generally, positions with low EP amino acids are far less common than those containing mutations with high EP, a trend also realized in the CoV-2 S protein (Figure 1B).

Of particular interest is an observed evolutionary change where an amino acid with high EP is replaced by an amino acid residue with low EP. While amino acids with low EP should be harmful or deleterious to viral fitness due to functional disruption or change, fixation of a low EP amino acid at a position suggests an underlying mechanism for natural selection to operate. These fixed, low EP mutations are called CAPs as they are predicted to alter protein function, and adaptive pressures may drive their prevalence (Kumar and Patel, 2018). Indeed, there is an overlap between these CAPs and the mutations suggested by other methods to be adaptive for the S protein (Cagliani et al., 2020; Singh and Yi, 2021; Kistler et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022b). Within these studies, sites 478, 486, 498, and 681 have been implicated in SARS-CoV-2 evolution, leaving the remaining 11 CAPs as undiscovered candidate sites for adaptation.

Interestingly, most of the CAP residues are at functionally critical sites, including the RBD and the Furin cleavage site (Figure 1C). As mentioned earlier, the RBD plays a key role in initiating the infection of a healthy cell by binding with the host organism’s ACE2 protein. Before ACE2 binding, one chain of the homotrimer comprising the S protein must open to expose the RBD (Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016; Henderson et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2020; Sztain et al., 2021). The Furin cleavage site plays a key role in the opening process as the binding of host cell protease Furin aids in the cleavage of the S protein into two domains: S1 and S2 (Wrobel et al., 2020: 13). Another host cell protease, TMPRSS2, facilitates viral attachment to the surface of target cells upon binding either to sites Arg815/Ser816, or Arg685/Ser686 which overlap with the Furin cleavage site 676–689, further emphasizing the importance of this area (; Fraser et al., 2022). Similar cleavage sites have been found in related coronaviruses, including HKU1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), which infects humans (Chan et al., 2008: 1; Millet and Whittaker, 2014; Millet and Whittaker, 2015), and the acquisition of similar cleavage sites is associated with increased pathogenicity in other viruses such as the influenza virus (Steinhauer, 1999). Interestingly, however, CAPs do not display such an overwhelming tendency to occur at well-known critical sites within human proteins studied with similar methods (Ose et al., 2022b), yet mutations at those sites are associated with disease, indicating their critical role in inducing functional change. Therefore, the identified CAPs in the S protein, which are signs of recent evolution, can provide mechanistic insights regarding the molecular adaptation of the virus. In particular, we aimed to analyze how these CAP positions in the S protein modulate the interaction with hACE2 using our protein dynamics-based analysis (Gerek and Ozkan, 2011; Nevin Gerek et al., 2013; Larrimore et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2015).

Asymmetry in communications among the network of interactions in spike describes how CAPs regulate the dynamics of the S protein

A mutation at a given amino acid position inevitably not only alters local interactions, but this change cascades through the residue–residue interaction network, which gives rise to a variation in native ensemble dynamics to modulate function (Dror et al., 2012; Labbadia and Morimoto, 2015; Sekhar and Kay, 2019; Campitelli et al., 2020.). Many groups have already examined the conformational dynamics of the S protein using normal mode analysis to explore mutation sites and interactions with different receptors (Zhou et al., 2020; Majumder et al., 2021; Teruel et al., 2021a; Verkhivker, 2022). However, our study will focus mainly on the role of CAPs, of which F486 and Q498 have already been identified through perturbation response scanning (PRS) as potential allosteric sites (Verkhivker, 2022). Thus, we analyze the internal dynamics of the system to understand the functional role of CAPs in S proteins. This analysis allows us to gain a mechanistic understanding of the relationship between CAP mutations and biophysical outcomes (Teruel et al., 2021b). First, we implement the dynamic coupling index (DCI) approach to study long-distance coupling between the CAPs and the hACE2 binding sites emerging from the 3D network of interactions across the S protein system. DCI calculation combines PRS and linear response theory (LRT) to capture the strength of a displacement response for position i upon perturbation of position j, relative to the average fluctuation response of position i to all other positions in the protein. It represents the strength of dynamic coupling between positions i and j upon perturbation to j (Larrimore et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2015).

Further, asymmetry can be captured in the DCI values as dynamic coupling is not necessarily symmetric due to an anisotropic interaction network. That is, each amino acid has a set of positions to which it is highly coupled, and this anisotropy in connections gives rise to unique differences in coupling between a given i, j pair of amino acids which do not have direct interactions. By calculating the coupling of the hACE2 binding interface in the RBD with respect to the CAP residue positions and vice versa, we can generate DCIasym (Figure 2A) as the difference between the normalized displacement response of position j upon a perturbation to position i (DCIij) and the normalized displacement response of position i upon a perturbation to position j (DCIji) (see ‘Methods’). If the DCIasym values significantly differ from zero, it shows asymmetry in coupling and presents a cause–effect relationship between the i, j pair in terms of force/signal propagation. This metric has been used previously in a variety of systems to analyze the unique behavior of positions within a protein and a given position’s propensity to effect biophysical changes upon mutation, particularly at long distances (Modi and Ozkan, 2018; Campitelli and Ozkan, 2020; Kolbaba-Kartchner et al., 2021; Ose et al., 2022a; Kazan et al., 2023; Campitelli et al., 2021).

Figure 2. Candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) control binding sites across chains.

Figure 2.

(A) Schematic representation of DCIasym. (B) DCIasym of CAP residue positions with the binding interface of receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the open chain. Residues in the closed chains with a low evolutionary probability (EP) amino acid in the reference sequence dominate the binding site interface of RBD in the open chain. There is a significant difference between the asymmetry profiles of the closed (M = –0.06, SD = 0.33) and open (M = –1.68, SD = 0.89) conformations (p<0.001).

Recent work from our group has shown an enhancement in cross-chain communication within the main protease of SARS COV-2 compared to SARS COV-1 (Campitelli et al., 2022). Furthermore, previous studies have shown that allosteric inter-chain communication is important to S protein function (Zhou et al., 2020; Spinello et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2022; Xue et al., 2022). In support of these findings, we observe through DCIasym that when the S protein is in its pre-fusion conformation with one chain open, the CAPs in the closed chains have negative coupling asymmetry with respect to the hACE2 binding site interface in the RBD-open chain. This indicates an allosteric control where the hACE2 binding site is dominated by the dynamics of the CAPs in closed chains (Figure 2B, yellow bars). As this open-state RBD is critical for the viral infection of host cells (Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016), our results suggest that this type of closed-to-open cross-chain interaction is important for viral proliferation. Our prior studies on DCIasym show a similar trend in lactose inhibitor (LacI), a protein with a functional role in gene expression through binding DNA. The allosteric mutations (i.e., mutations on the sites that are far from the DNA binding sites) that alter DNA binding affinity not only exhibited unique asymmetry profiles with the DNA binding sites of LacI, but also regulated the dynamics of these binding sites (Campitelli et al., 2021).

Similarly, it is possible that mutations to such residue positions within the S protein can be used to regulate the dynamics of the hACE2 bindings sites of the open RBD state. We, therefore, propose that the residue positions with CAP substitutions hold the potential for mutations in the spike sequence which can alter the opening and closing dynamics of the RBD. This hypothesis is further supported by many mutations already observed at these residue positions which alter the infection rate (Brister et al., 2015). Interestingly, residues responsible for extremely low asymmetry values (<–4) lie overwhelmingly in the region 476–486. These same residues were suggested to stabilize S protein dynamics and prime it for host Furin proteolysis (Raghuvamsi et al., 2021).

Moreover, as a control, we performed the same analysis on the S protein with the RBDs of all chains in the closed configuration. In this case, we observed that the DCIasym of the CAPs residue positions with respect to the hACE2 interface in the other chains yields a largely symmetric distribution about 0 (Figure 2B, green bars). This verifies that the asymmetry in the coupling of CAPs with the exposed binding site interface in pre-fusion configuration results from one of the RBDs opening up and further suggests the allosteric role played by CAPs in locking the S protein in the RBD open state.

Dynamics analysis shows that rigid sites tend to be more highly conserved than flexible sites

CAPs represent important S protein amino acid changes between related coronaviruses across multiple species and the Wuhan-Hu-1 reference sequence (MN908947). Since SARS-CoV-2 first spread to humans, it has continued to mutate and evolve rapidly, particularly regarding the S protein (Amicone et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022). Just as mutations leading to the Wuhan strain caused an increase in binding affinity to hACE2, continued evolution in human hosts has resulted in further altered binding affinities as well as different phenotypic outcomes for those infected (Ali et al., 2021; Barton et al., 2021; Ozono et al., 2021).

We explore whether protein dynamics has played a role in the selection of mutational sites during the evolution of the S protein since 2019. Our previous work has indicated that the rate of evolution per positional site exhibits a positive correlation with positional flexibility; generally, positions that exhibit higher flexibility are also sites that experience a higher number of amino acid substitutions (Liu and Bahar, 2012; Maguid et al., 2008; Maguid et al., 2006; Mikulska-Ruminska et al., 2019; Nevin Gerek et al., 2013). To confirm these findings for the evolution of the S protein using the sequenced variants of infected humans, we examine the flexibility of the S protein, an analysis conducted in other studies which resulted in several important findings (Nguyen et al., 2020; Socher et al., 2021; Teruel et al., 2021b; Pipitò et al., 2022; Verkhivker, 2022; Abduljalil et al., 2023). For example, Teruel et al., 2021a used their Elastic Network Contact Model to find how certain highly observed mutations make the open state more rigid and the closed state more flexible. For our own flexibility analysis, we measure the site-specific amino acid flexibility using the dynamic flexibility index (DFI). Using the same mathematical foundation as DCI, DFI evaluates each position’s displacement response to random force perturbations at other locations in the protein (Gerek and Ozkan, 2011; Nevin Gerek et al., 2013), and it can be considered a measure of a given position’s ability to explore its local conformational space. We found that the COVID-19 S protein shows the expected high correlation between the occurrence of mutations and site flexibility (Figure 3) when we compare %DFI (DFI ranked by percentile) to the average number of variants per position found within a given %DFI bin. Previous studies have indicated that rigid residues are critical for functional dynamics, thus more likely to impact function if mutated and, generally, can lead to a loss of function and thus more conserved (Kim et al., 2015; Butler et al., 2018; Modi et al., 2021b; Modi et al., 2021a; Kazan et al., 2022; Ose et al., 2022a; Stevens et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2015). This analysis also agrees with these previous studies and highlights the power of negative selection, in line with the neutral theory of molecular evolution, stating that deleterious mutations (i.e., those on the rigid positions) should be eliminated and therefore not observed (Kimura, 1983).

Figure 3. The average number of variants observed among residues of different flexibility.

Figure 3.

Residues were sorted into one of five bins based on flexibility. Then, the average number of variants for residues within that bin was calculated. Here, the number of variants is defined as the number of different amino acid varieties found at that site. Mutational data was calculated across approximately 24,000 SARS-CoV-2 S protein sequences from the NCBI Datasets Project (Brister et al., 2015). Residue flexibility, as reported here via %DFI, was computed using PDB id 6vsb from the Protein DataBank (Berman et al., 2000). More rigid residues tend to have fewer variants (r = 0.94).

Figure 3—source data 1. A comparison of the amino acid sequences for different variant spike proteins used in this article.
Sequence MN90894.3 is used as the wild-type (reference) sequence. For each different variant, residue positions matching the reference sequence are shown in blue, while locations where the residue differs from the reference sequence are shown in yellow. For S protein locations not shown here, all variants presented have the same amino acid type as the reference sequence.

Continued mutations within human hosts have resulted in a multitude of variants. Indeed, by fitting various molecular clock models to genome sequence data, VOC emergence is punctuated by an episodic period of rapid evolution, with a substitution rate of up to fourfold greater than the background substitution rate (Kumar et al., 2021; Tay et al., 2022). With such an aggressive evolutionary rate, we are finding VOCs to consist of a number of different characteristic mutations, almost all of which are CAPs. Sequence differences between the various VOCs used in this article can be found in Figure 3—source data 1.

To explore the dynamic effects of the evolution of the spike in humans, we examine asymmetry with these new potentially adaptive sites, namely the low EP (CAP) characteristic mutation sites observed in the Delta variant, the widely dominant variant from December 2021 to January 2022 (Thye et al., 2021), and the Omicron variant, a highly transmissible variant whose lineages have remained dominant since January 2022 (Kim et al., 2021; Figure 4). This analysis revealed a mechanism similar to that for the CAPs in the reference protein (Figure 2) as the open-chain binding interface is also allosterically controlled by these potentially new adaptive sites. Regarding this, we see that the asymmetry is much more pronounced in observed mutations of Omicron variants, suggesting that these new mutations have a stronger power in controlling the dynamics of open-chain hACE2 binding interface compared to those observed in Delta variants. We surmise that the difference in virulence and infection rates between Omicron and Delta (Earnest et al., 2022; Bager et al., 2021; Sheikh et al., 2021; Twohig et al., 2022; Houhamdi et al., 2022; Menni et al., 2022) might be due to these specific CAPs within each variant and their differences in allosterically controlling the dynamics of open RBD binding sites as also observed in the DCIasym analysis of the Wuhan variant in Figure 2.

Figure 4. Mutations in variants of concern (VOCs) present different asymmetry profiles.

Figure 4.

(A) DCIasym with low evolutionary probability (EP) characteristic mutation sites of Delta or Omicron strains in the closed chains and the binding interface of receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the open chain. Delta displays a second peak closer to zero, suggesting that Delta mutation sites (M = –0.98, SD = 0.80) have less allosteric control over the hACE2 binding sites than Omicron mutation sites (M = –1.74, SD = 1.00) (p<0.001). However, both sets of sites have far more control over hACE2 binding sites than expected, based on a random control group (M = 0.03, SD = 0.85) (p<0.001). (B) S protein structure showing binding interface sites (transparent gray), Delta mutation sites (magenta), Omicron mutation sites (cyan), and sites mutated in both Omicron and Delta (blue).

Experimental results motivate the use of EpiScore within the SARS-CoV-2 S protein

The fact that the identified CAPs in the reference protein and the more recently evolved CAPs of Delta and Omicron variants both show a high degree of control over the functional sites begs the question: what is the complex interaction between these previous and new CAP sites? Motivated by this concept, we explore the interplay of mutational pairs to understand the effects of the specific amino acid backgrounds associated with these two predominant variants. Some CAP sites in Delta and Omicron have already been considered adaptive (Kemp et al., 2021; Kistler et al., 2022; Maher et al., 2022; Neher, 2022).

It is well understood that the impact of even a single mutation to a protein sequence can sometimes dramatically alter the biophysical behavior of the system. However, the mechanistic impact of point mutations can only be fully understood when the sequence background upon which it is made is accounted for. This means that, in the case of strains with multiple mutations, the interplay between mutated positions will ultimately impact a protein as an aggregate behavior, where the presence of previous mutations may strongly (or weakly) influence some mutations. This concept of non-additivity is known as epistasis. In fact, studies of evolutionary pathways of mutations have suggested that a majority of the mutations have a second or a higher order epistasis among them (Bershtein et al., 2006). Nature exploits this higher order complex relationship between the mutations to evolve their function.

To computationally capture and interpret the pairwise effects of mutations, we have developed an in-house computational tool called EpiScore (Figure 5A). Here, we evaluate how a given position pair i j may affect other critical positions k of the protein. EpiScore is the relative coupling strength to a position k when positions i and j are perturbed simultaneously compared to the average dynamic coupling strength of i to k and j to k. EpiScore has previously been used successfully to capture overarching trends in GB1 deep mutational scan data as well as specific instances of the development of antibiotic resistance in various enzymatic systems (Campitelli and Ozkan, 2020). An EpiScore of 1 indicates perfect coupling additivity, and deviations from this value represent non-additive behavior between position pairs and functionally important sites. Prior EpiScore work has shown a difference in EpiScore between the sites of compensatory and non-compensatory mutations, where both yield distributions with peaks around 1, but non-compensatory mutations show higher deviation in their EpiScore distribution (Ose et al., 2022b).

Figure 5. EpiScore provides a measurement of epistasis.

Figure 5.

(A) Schematic representation of cross-chain EpiScore, describing i, j, in chains B and C, respectively, and its impact in receptor-binding domain (RBD) binding position k in the open RBD conformer chain A. (B) Colors indicate EpiScore values for given mutation pairs, averaged over hACE2 binding sites. Cross-chain residue pairs in the upper right tend to be highly epistatic, similar to pairwise second-order interaction coefficients from Moulana et al., 2022.

Many studies have confirmed epistasis between residues within the S protein (Moulana et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022a; Moulana et al., 2023; Witte et al., 2023). These epistatic residues can have various effects on hACE2 or antibody binding. Within SARS-CoV-2, here we calculate the EpiScore (Figure 5B) of a set of mutation pairs used by Moulana et al., 2022 and compare our results to quantified epistatic effects determined by the experimental hACE2 binding affinity of ‘first-order’ single mutation variants compared to ‘second-order’ mutation pairs. Our EpiScore results and the experimentally determined epistasis both captured highly epistatic behavior among residues 493, 496, 498, 501, and 505, as well as a lack of epistatic behavior for residues 339, 371, 373, and 375; however, EpiScore generally showed higher epistasis values than experiment for residues 417, 440, 446, 477, 478, and 484.

EpiScore highlights the epistatic relationship between the recent adaptive mutations in VOCs and the CAPs of the Wuhan reference

Seeking further to understand the role of epistasis within S protein variants, we explored the possibility of epistatic relationships between the CAPs of the Wuhan variant and the new CAPs in VOCs. Thus, we computed the EpiScore of these CAP positions in the closed RBDs (i.e., chains B and C) with respect to functional hACE2 binding interface sites of the open RBD chain (chain A) (Figure 5B) and obtained EpiScore distributions.

To contrast these variants, Omicron (Figure 6, cyan) shows a high proportion of additive mutations compared to the Delta variant (Figure 6, magenta), with a peak centered on 1. The comparatively more pathogenic Delta variant exhibited many non-additive mutations with EpiScores below one. This again suggests that the cross-communication between the open and closed chain of the S protein is important for regulating the function. Four out of seven low EP Delta mutation sites used in this analysis often resulted in EpiScores below 1. Each of those is found in the N-terminal domain (NTD) on or near the N3 loop and is implicated in antibody escape in recent studies (Chi et al., 2020; Weisblum et al., 2020; Harvey et al., 2021; Klinakis et al., 2021; Cantoni et al., 2022). The low EpiScores of NTD mutations suggest that they dampen the control of Wuhan variant CAPs over the hACE2 binding sites in addition to their effects on antibody binding. It is possible that what the Delta variant gained in transmission rate also came with being more harmfully pathogenic due in part to negatively epistatic interactions. In contrast, the mutations leading to the development of the Omicron strain were additive with respect to Wuhan variant CAPs, possibly leading to a lower pathogenicity and higher effective immune escape, resulting in an overall higher transmission rate. Another possible explanation for the higher transmission rate of Omicron comes from a different normal mode analysis study, which found that despite reduced binding affinity with hACE2, Omicron showed increased occupancy of the open state compared to the closed state, which would increase chances of interaction with hACE2 (Teruel et al., 2021b). It is worth noting that other variants contain NTD mutations which result in low EpiScores; however, the proportion of these mutations within the set is considerably less than in Delta (Figure 6—figure supplement 2).

Figure 6. EpiScores of variants of concern (VOC) mutations.

Here, i = low evolutionary probability (EP) Delta mutation sites (magenta), low EP Omicron mutation sites (cyan), and a random selection of sites (gray), j = low EP sites in the Wuhan variant, and k = the binding interface of the open chain. EpiScores using sites of either variant (Delta: M = 0.70, SD = 0.50, Omicron M = 0.86, SD = 0.46) are significantly different (p<0.001) from a set of EpiScores using random sites (M = 0.84, SD = 0.41), but the distribution for Delta variants differs much more from the other two. EpiScores for other variants can be found in Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

Figure 6.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1. EpiScores for more variants of concern (VOCs).

Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

EpiScores with i = characteristic mutation sites, j = low evolutionary probability (EP) sites, and k = the binding interface of the open chain. EpiScores using variant sites are significantly different (p<0.001) from a set of EpiScores using random sites.
Figure 6—figure supplement 2. EpiScores in the N-terminal domain (NTD).

Figure 6—figure supplement 2.

EpiScores with i = characteristic mutation sites within the NTD, j = low evolutionary probability (EP) sites, and k = the binding interface of the open chain. NTD mutation sites result in markedly lower EpiScores compared to elsewhere (p<0.001).

One of the more notable features of generated EpiScore distributions is the presence of a tail of values upward of 2.0, indicating highly epistatic behavior. Interestingly, these tails are largely due to three different CAPs: 346R, 486F, and 498Q. Those residues are nearby one another within the protein structure and have been reported to play a role in antibody binding, either being known antibody binding sites (346R and 486F) or having received very high antibody accessibility scores (498Q) (Harvey et al., 2021; Raghuvamsi et al., 2021). These observed high EpiScore values also support other studies indicating the epistatic interactions between these CAPs and the mutations of the VOCs within the S protein are crucial for maintaining binding affinity of hACE2 whilst evading immunity (Hong et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022b).

Inspection of EpiScores of Delta and Omicron potentially adaptive mutation sites with only CAP site 486F (a binding site for both hACE2 and antibodies) (Huang et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2021; Harvey et al., 2021; Raghuvamsi et al., 2021) shows highly epistatic interactions at other hACE2 binding sites (Figure 6). However, within a recent and rapidly spreading subvariant of Omicron, XBB 1.5, we see a mutation of S to P, a rare double nucleotide mutation, at site 486 (preceding Omicron variants included mutation F486S from the original CAP). This new variant has unprecedented immune escape capabilities, resisting neutralizing antibodies almost entirely (Qu et al., 2023). EpiScores of other XBB 1.5-specific mutation sites with 486P are almost entirely greater than 1, showing an even higher degree of epistasis with the binding sites of RBD (Figure 7). These results present a threefold importance for the S486P mutation: not only does this residue alter antibody (i.e., immune escape) and hACE2 binding by directly modifying a binding site, but it may also be responsible for modifying hACE2 binding via epistatic cooperation with other co-occurring mutations.

Figure 7. EpiScores with candidate adaptive polymorphism (CAP) site 486.

Here, i = low evolutionary probability (EP) Delta mutation sites (magenta), low EP Omicron mutation sites (cyan), and a random selection of sites (gray), j = site 486, and k = the binding interface of the open chain. CAP and hACE2 and antibody binding site 486 displays epistasis with almost all XBB 1.5 variant sites at almost every hACE2 binding site (M = 1.40, SD = 0.46) and presents a significantly different profile from other variant sites (p<0.01). EpiScores involving 486 for other variants can be found in Figure 7—figure supplement 1.

Figure 7.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1. EpiScores for more variants of concern (VOCs) with candidate adaptive polymorphism (CAP) site 486.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1.

EpiScores with i = characteristic mutation sites, j = site 486, and k = the binding interface of the open chain. CAP and hACE2 and antibody binding site 486 displays epistasis with almost all XBB 1.5 variant sites at almost every hACE2 binding site. EpiScores using variant sites are significantly different (p<.001) from a set of EpiScores using random sites.

Change in flexibility of RBD binding site correlates with experimental binding affinities for Omicron and Omicron XBB variants

Experimental studies have tracked hACE2 binding for different variants since the virus first spread (Ali et al., 2021; Barton et al., 2021; Ozono et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022). Within the Omicron variant, for example, characteristic mutations on the RBD are shown to increase the overall binding affinity of the virus to the ACE2 receptor, which is suspected to allow it to spread more easily (Kim et al., 2021). Furthermore, the new Omicron XBB and Omicron XBB 1.5 variants contain additional mutations in the RBD and antibody binding residues, which may further impact their dynamics and interactions with the host.

To gain deeper insights into the impact of dynamics on the binding affinity of hACE2 and antibodies with the recent Omicron XBB variants, we conducted molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. By analyzing the resulting trajectories, we investigated how these mutations influence the flexibility and rigidity of the RBD and antibody binding residues, consequently affecting their binding affinity and potential for immune evasion (Figure 8). To understand the overall flexibility changes, we measured the sum of DFI of the ACE2 binding residues, as well as the sum of DFI of the antibody binding residues, calculated from the MD trajectories and compared them with experimental viral binding (disassociation constants) and immunity evasion antibody IC50 values (Yue et al., 2023).

Figure 8. The %DFI calculations for variants Omicron, XBB, and XBB 1.5.

(A) %DFI profile of the variants are plotted in the same panel. The gray shaded areas and dashed lines indicate the ACE2 binding regions, whereas the red dashed lines show the antibody binding residues. (B) The sum of %DFI values of RBD-ACE2 interface residues. The trend of total %DFI with the log of Kd values overlaps with the one seen with the experiments (r = 0.97). (C) The receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody binding residues are used to calculate the sum of %DFI. The ranking captured with the total %DFI agrees with the log of IC50 values from the experiments.

Figure 8.

Figure 8—figure supplement 1. Non-additive interactions influence variant behavior.

Figure 8—figure supplement 1.

(A) Three critical mutations that emerged quickly and were frequently observed in other dominant variants are S477N, T478K, and N501Y. EpiScores of sites 477, 478, and 501 with one another are shown (with k = the binding interface of the open chain). These residues are highly epistatic, producing higher responses than expected when perturbed together. (B) The difference in the dynamic flexibility profiles between the single mutants and the most common variants for the hACE2 binding residues of the receptor-binding domain (RBD). The dynamic flexibility index (DFI) profiles exhibit significantly different flexibility in each background variant, highlighting the critical non-additive interactions of the other mutation in the given background variant. Thus, these three binding affinity-impacting mutations do not contribute only their own effects to the binding interface, there are epistatic interactions with the other mutations in variants of concern (VOCs) that shape the dynamics of the binding interface to modulate binding.

This investigation elucidated the impact of mutations in the RBD and antibody binding residues on the binding affinity of the S protein and immune evasion by modulating their flexibility and rigidity (Figure 8A). The Omicron XBB variant exhibits heightened flexibility in hACE2 and antibody binding residues, reducing infectivity and enhancing immune evasion. Conversely, the Omicron XBB 1.5 variant induces distinct dynamics in these regions, rendering the RBD-ACE2 interface more rigid while increasing flexibility in antibody binding residues. These effects indicate that Omicron XBB 1.5 retains its antibody escape capabilities while regaining ACE2 binding affinity comparable to previous Omicron variants, in accordance with experimental findings (Yue et al., 2023). These findings suggest that mutations in the RBD and antibody binding residues can have complex effects on the dynamics of the protein and, ultimately, on the virus’s ability to infect and evade the host immune system through an alteration of binding site dynamics. However, we do note that the effect of mutations will heavily depend on the genetic background in which they are mutated. The effects of a mutation on a Delta variant protein may differ entirely from the effects of a mutation on an Omicron variant protein (Figure 8—figure supplement 1).

Conclusion

We analyzed the evolutionary trajectory of the CoV-2 S protein in humans to understand the dynamic and epistatic interactions of the mutations defining specific VOCs. We first obtain the phylogenetic tree of the COV-2 S protein and identify the sites of certain recent mutations known as CAPs. CAPs are considered adaptive because mutations rarely tolerated in closely related sequences have suddenly become fixed, implying a degree of functional importance or evolution (Liu et al., 2016). In addition, our earlier work has shown that CAPS can also be compensatory; multiple CAPs may dynamically compensate for one another, changing the dynamic landscape and allowing for different mutations (Ose et al., 2022b). We then explored the mechanistic insights and epistatic relationship between the observed mutations in different VOCs and CAP sites, and, particularly, the relationship between CAP sites and the functionally critical RBD using our dynamic coupling analysis (Kumar et al., 2015).

We find a mechanistic pattern in the S protein evolution that is common amongst previously studied systems, where allosteric sites exert control over the dynamics of the binding sites, and mutations of these allosteric sites modulate function. Coupling our analysis with evolutionary theory showed that many of these allosteric sites regulating function of the S protein may have been subjected to adaptive evolution as observed in mutations in VOCs. Our dynamics analysis also provides a mechanistic insight where the Omicron-defining sites have greater control over the binding sites than the Delta variant and are dynamically additive with the functional advantage of CAPs, thus, the greatest infectivity may not be a coincidence.

Specifically, we find that the interactions between CAP sites and VOC-defining mutations show fingerprints of non-additive dynamics within the Delta variant. In contrast, mutations leading to the Omicron variant are largely additive, driving critical dynamical behavior closer to the patterns observed within the wild-type. These interactions may also drive observed behavior similar between the reference and Omicron strains yet differ in the delta strain, such as the severity of infection as evidenced by hospitalization rates (Houhamdi et al., 2022; Menni et al., 2022). It has also been shown that the Omicron variant has a lower binding affinity with hACE2 than previous variants (Wu et al., 2022), which may contribute to its low pathogenicity.

Long-ranged interactions between different sites within a given protein are critically important for protein function (Peters and Lively, 1999; Bershtein et al., 2006; Collins et al., 2006; Ekeberg et al., 2013; Levy et al., 2017; Harrigan et al., 2018; Otten et al., 2018; Rojas Echenique et al., 2019; Shimagaki and Weigt, 2019; de la Paz et al., 2020; Rizzato et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020; Bisardi et al., 2022) and for the CoV-2 S protein in particular (Zeng et al., 2020; Castiglione et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2021; Garvin et al., 2021; Nielsen et al., 2022; Ramarao-Milne et al., 2022; Rochman et al., 2022; Rodriguez-Rivas et al., 2022). By showing dynamic differences between the interactions of CAPs, which have likely played a major role in allowing the virus to infect human hosts, the binding site, and the characteristic mutations of dominant Delta and Omicron strains, we see a ‘fine-tuning’ of protein behavior. As variants continue to evolve, Omicron subvariants are of growing concern due in large part to further increased immune evasion (Callaway, 2022; Wang et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2022b), and we observe that the new mutations observed in antibody binding sites yield more epistatic interaction with the CAPs. In addition to supporting previous dynamic research on the S protein, this analysis provides the insight that CAP sites are of continued importance to protein function and should be given special attention when considering the impact of future mutations.

Methods

Dynamic flexibility and dynamic coupling

The DFI utilizes a PRS technique that combines the elastic network model (ENM) and LRT (Gerek and Ozkan, 2011; Nevin Gerek et al., 2013). In ENM, the protein is considered as a network of beads at Cα positions interacting with each other via a harmonic spring potential. Using LRT, ∆R is calculated as the fluctuation response vector of residue j due to unit force’s F perturbation on residue i, averaged over multiple unit force directions to simulate an isotropic perturbation.

[ΔR]3N×1=[H]3N×3N1[F]3N×1 (1)

where H is the Hessian, a 3N × 3N matrix that can be constructed from 3-D atomic coordinate information and is composed of the second derivatives of the harmonic potential with respect to the components of the position’s vectors of length 3N. The Hessian inverse in this equation may be replaced with the covariance matrix G obtained from MD simulations as follows:

[ΔR]3N×1=[G]3N×3N[F]3N×1 (2)

MD simulations were used to obtain the DFI profiles of Omicron, Omicron XBB, and Omicron XBB 1.5. In order to obtain DFI, each position in the structure was perturbed sequentially to generate a Perturbation Response Matrix A

AN×N=[|ΔR1|1|ΔRN|1|ΔR1|N|ΔRN|N] (3)

where ΔRji=R2 is the magnitude of fluctuation response at position i due to perturbations at position j. The DFI value of position i is then treated as the displacement response of position i relative to the net displacement response of the entire protein, which is calculated by sequentially perturbing each position in the structure.

DFIi=j=1NΔRjii=1Nj=1NΔRji (4)

It is also often useful to quantify position flexibility relative to the flexibility ranges unique to individual structures. To that end, DFI can be presented as a percentile rank, %DFI. All %DFI calculations present in this work used the DFI value of every residue of the full spike structure for ranking. The DFI parameter can be considered a measure of a given amino acid position’s ability to explore its local conformational space.

Dynamic coupling index

Similar to DFI, the DCI (Larrimore et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2015) also utilizes PRS with the ENM and LRT. DCI captures the strength of displacement response of a given position i upon perturbation to a single functionally important position (or subset of positions) j, relative to the average fluctuation response of position i when all of the positions within a structure are perturbed.

DCIji=jNfunctional|ΔRj|i/Nfunctionalj=1N|ΔRj|i/N (5)

When only positional pairs are concerned, this expression reduces to

DCIji=ΔRjij=1NΔRji/N (6)

As such, this parameter represents a measure of the dynamic coupling between i and j upon a perturbation to j. As with DFI, DCIji can also be presented as a percentile-ranked %DCIji.

One of the most important aspects of DCI is that the entire network of interactions is explicitly included in subsequent calculations without the need for dimensionality reduction techniques. If one considers interactions such as communication directionality or dynamic coupling regulation between position pairs as inherent properties of an anisotropic interaction network, it is critical to include the interactions of the entire network to accurately model the effect one residue can have on another.

Here, we present two further extensions of DCI, which allow us to uniquely model coupling directionality and epistatic effects: DCIasym and EpiScore, respectively. Interestingly, we can capture asymmetry between different residues within a protein through DCI, as a coupling in and of itself is asymmetric within an anisotropic network. That is, each amino acid has a set of positions to which it is highly coupled, and this anisotropy in connections gives rise to unique differences in coupling between a given i j pair of amino acids which do not have direct interactions (Figure 2A). DCIasym, then, is simply DCIij (the normalized displacement response of position j upon a perturbation to position i) − DCIji (Equation (7)). Using DCIasym, we can determine a cause–effect relationship between the i j pair in terms of force/signal propagation between these two positions.

DCIasym=DCIijDCIji (7)
%DCIasym=%DCIij%DCIji (8)

where a positive DCIasym value indicates communication from position i to position j.

EpiScore can identify or describe potential non-additivity in substitution behavior between residue pairs. This metric can capture the differences in a normalized perturbation response to a position k when a force is applied at two residues i and j simultaneously versus the average additive perturbation response when each residue i, j, is perturbed individually (Figure 5A, Equation 9).

EpiScore=%DCI[ij]k12(%DCIik+%DCIjk) (9)

EpiScore values <1 (>1) indicate that the additive perturbations of positions i and j generate a greater (lesser) response at position k than the effect of a simultaneous perturbation. This means that, when treated with a simultaneous perturbation at both sites i and j, the displacement response of k is lower (higher) than the average effect of individual perturbations to i and j, one at a time. As EpiScore is a linear scale, the further the value from 1, the greater the effect described above.

Molecular dynamics (MD)

The production simulations for the Omicron variants, including Omicron, Omicron XBB, and Omicron XBB 1.5, were performed with the AMBER software package. These variants, each characterized by specific mutations, were modeled based on the template PDB structure 6M0J. The initial protein configurations in the simulations were parameterized using the ff14SB force field (Maier et al., 2015). In order to create an appropriate solvation environment for the proteins, a solvation box was defined around them, maintaining a minimum separation distance of 16 Å from the protein to the box boundaries. This was accomplished by employing the explicit TIP3P water model (Sun and Kollman, 1995), with the addition of sodium and chloride ions to maintain overall charge neutrality.

The simulation procedure involves an initial energy minimization step, aimed at mitigating steric clashes and optimizing the system’s energy. The steepest descent algorithm was applied, encompassing 11,000 steps. Subsequently, the system underwent a gradual temperature increase (heat up), up to 300 K, and was subjected to production simulations under a constant number of particles, pressure, and temperature ensemble (NPT).

During these production simulations, temperature was maintained at 300 K, with pressure regulation set at 1 bar. Temperature regulation was achieved through the utilization of the Langevin thermostat (Hünenberger, 2005) and Berendsen barostat (Berendsen et al., 1984), featuring a collision frequency of 1.0 picoseconds⁻¹. Hydrogen atom bond lengths were constrained using the SHAKE algorithm (Pearlman et al., 1995). The production trajectories were simulated for 1 µs each.

To ensure the reliability of the simulations and assess their convergence, a convergence criterion was employed. The achieved convergence was determined by monitoring the root mean square deviation (RMSD) between the highest sampled conformation in consecutive time windows (Sawle and Ghosh, 2016). Specifically, convergence was defined as the point at which the RMSD between the highest sampled conformation in the last 300 ns window and the 300 ns window immediately preceding it dropped below 1 Å. Window sizes varying from 100 ns to 500 ns were employed to evaluate convergence, ensuring the robustness and stability of the obtained results.

To calculate DFI, covariance matrix data were computed over different time windows as discussed above. By default, utilizing the Hessian implies a restriction to a harmonic potential, assuming that the data are sampled from a Gaussian distribution. Ergodicity in both simulation time and initial structures sampled in each time interval ensures two key conditions: (i) consistency of potential energy across conformations sampled from the same distribution. (ii) The sampling of different initial conformations while computing covariance matrices at various time windows eliminates global motions and accurately captures equilibrium coordinates. Consequently, the final average DFI profiles are independent of time window size, resulting in consistent results across different time window sizes (e.g., 50 ns vs. 75 ns) and enabling the acquisition of statistically significant DFI values.

Statistical tests

Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were used to demonstrate linear relationships between continuous variables in Figures 3 and 8. Student’s independent t-tests were performed to demonstrate a significant difference between distributions in Figures 2, 4 and 6 (and Figure 3—source data 1, Figure 6—figure supplements 1 and 2), and Figure 7 (and Figure 7—figure supplement 1), as demonstrated by the p-value.

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided to NJO, PC, TM, and ICK by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (award number AWD00034439) and to SBO by the National Science Foundation (award numbers: 1715591 and 1901709) and the National Institutes of Health R01GM147635-01. SK acknowledges the National Science Foundation (GCR 1934848) and the National Institutes of Health (GM139540) grants.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Contributor Information

Sudhir Kumar, Email: s.kumar@temple.edu.

Sefika Banu Ozkan, Email: banu.ozkan@asu.edu.

Donald Hamelberg, Georgia State University, United States.

Qiang Cui, Boston University, United States.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation AWD00034439 to Nicholas James Ose, Paul Campitelli, Tushar Modi, I Can Kazan.

  • National Science Foundation 1715591 to Sefika Banu Ozkan.

  • National Science Foundation 1901709 to Sefika Banu Ozkan.

  • National Science Foundation GCR 1934848 to Sudhir Kumar.

  • National Institutes of Health R01GM147635-01 to Sefika Banu Ozkan.

  • National Institutes of Health GM139540 to Sudhir Kumar.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing.

Additional files

Supplementary file 1. DFI profile of the Omicron variant, as obtained from MD simulations.
Supplementary file 2. DFI profile of the Omicron XBB variant, as obtained from MD simulations.
Supplementary file 3. DFI profile of the Omicron XBB 1.5variant, as obtained from MD simulations.
Supplementary file 4. Mutation sites and EP values.
Supplementary file 5. The alignment used to generate EP values.
elife-92063-supp5.zip (4.7KB, zip)
Supplementary file 6. Alignment of VOC sequences.
elife-92063-supp6.zip (1.3KB, zip)
MDAR checklist

Data availability

The code to perform DFI and DCI analysis is available at https://github.com/SBOZKAN/DFI-DCI (copy archived at Ozkan, 2024). Molecular Dynamics data are available at https://github.com/SBOZKAN/COV2SPIKE_MD. The mutation sites and EP values are contained in Supplementary file 4. The alignment used to generate EP values is also contained within the supporting information files as "EP_alignment.fas". Protein Databank ID number 6VXX (Walls et al., 2020) was used for closed conformation DCI calculations. 6VSB (Wrapp et al., 2020) was used for DFI calculations, EpiScore calculations, and open conformation DCI calculations. 6M0J (Lan et al., 2020) was used in molecular dynamics simulations of the RBD.

The following dataset was generated:

Ozkan SB. 2024. COV2SPIKE_MD. GitHub. 91b9d69

The following previously published datasets were used:

Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, Goldsmith JA, Hsieh C, Abiona O, Graham BS, McLellan JS. 2020. Prefusion 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein with a single receptor-binding domain up. RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6VSB

Wang X, Lan J, Ge J, Yu J, Shan S. 2020. Crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound with ACE2. RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6M0J

Walls AC, Park YJ, Tortorici MA, Wall A. 2020. Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (closed state) RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6VXX

References

  1. Abduljalil JM, Elghareib AM, Samir A, Ezat AA, Elfiky AA. How helpful were molecular dynamics simulations in shaping our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein dynamics? International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2023;242:125153. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ali F, Kasry A, Amin M. The new SARS-CoV-2 strain shows a stronger binding affinity to ACE2 due to N501Y mutant. Medicine in Drug Discovery. 2021;10:100086. doi: 10.1016/j.medidd.2021.100086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Amicone M, Borges V, Alves MJ, Isidro J, Zé-Zé L, Duarte S, Vieira L, Guiomar R, Gomes JP, Gordo I. Mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 and emergence of mutators during experimental evolution. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health. 2022;10:142–155. doi: 10.1093/emph/eoac010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bager P, Wohlfahrt J, Rasmussen M, Albertsen M, Krause TG. Hospitalisation associated with SARS-CoV-2 delta variant in Denmark. The Lancet. Infectious Diseases. 2021;21:1351. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00580-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barton MI, MacGowan SA, Kutuzov MA, Dushek O, Barton GJ, van der Merwe PA. Effects of common mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike RBD and its ligand, the human ACE2 receptor on binding affinity and kinetics. eLife. 2021;10:e70658. doi: 10.7554/eLife.70658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, van Gunsteren WF, DiNola A, Haak JR. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1984;81:3684–3690. doi: 10.1063/1.448118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Research. 2000;28:235–242. doi: 10.1093/nar/28.1.235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bershtein S, Segal M, Bekerman R, Tokuriki N, Tawfik DS. Robustness-epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein. Nature. 2006;444:929–932. doi: 10.1038/nature05385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bhabha G, Ekiert DC, Jennewein M, Zmasek CM, Tuttle LM, Kroon G, Dyson HJ, Godzik A, Wilson IA, Wright PE. Divergent evolution of protein conformational dynamics in dihydrofolate reductase. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. 2013;20:1243–1249. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bisardi M, Rodriguez-Rivas J, Zamponi F, Weigt M. Modeling sequence-space exploration and emergence of epistatic signals in protein evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2022;39:msab321. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Boni MF, Lemey P, Jiang X, Lam TTY, Perry BW, Castoe TA, Rambaut A, Robertson DL. Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Microbiology. 2020;5:1408–1417. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-0771-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brister JR, Ako-adjei D, Bao Y, Blinkova O. NCBI viral genomes resource. Nucleic Acids Research. 2015;43:D571–D577. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Butler BM, Kazan IC, Kumar A, Ozkan SB, editor Coevolving residues inform protein dynamics profiles and disease susceptibility of nSNVs. PLOS Computational Biology. 2018;14:e1006626. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cagliani R, Forni D, Clerici M, Sironi M. Computational Inference of Selection Underlying the Evolution of the Novel Coronavirus, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Journal of Virology. 2020;94:e00411-20. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00411-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Callaway E. COVID ‘variant soup’ is making winter surges hard to predict. Nature. 2022;611:213–214. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-03445-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Campbell E, Kaltenbach M, Correy GJ, Carr PD, Porebski BT, Livingstone EK, Afriat-Jurnou L, Buckle AM, Weik M, Hollfelder F, Tokuriki N, Jackson CJ. The role of protein dynamics in the evolution of new enzyme function. Nature Chemical Biology. 2016;12:944–950. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Campitelli P, Modi T, Kumar S, Ozkan SB. The role of conformational dynamics and allostery in modulating protein evolution. Annual Review of Biophysics. 2020;49:267–288. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-052118-115517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Campitelli P, Ozkan SB. Allostery and epistasis: emergent properties of anisotropic networks. Entropy. 2020;22:667. doi: 10.3390/e22060667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Campitelli P, Swint-Kruse L, Ozkan SB. Substitutions at nonconserved rheostat positions modulate function by rewiring long-range, dynamic interactions. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2021;38:201–214. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Campitelli P, Lu J, Ozkan SB. Dynamic allostery highlights the evolutionary differences between the CoV-1 and CoV-2 main proteases. Biophysical Journal. 2022;121:1483–1492. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2022.03.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cantoni D, Murray MJ, Kalemera MD, Dicken SJ, Stejskal L, Brown G, Lytras S, Coey JD, McKenna J, Bridgett S, Simpson D, Fairley D, Thorne LG, Reuschl AK, Forrest C, Ganeshalingham M, Muir L, Palor M, Jarvis L, Willett B, Power UF, McCoy LE, Jolly C, Towers GJ, Doores KJ, Robertson DL, Shepherd AJ, Reeves MB, Bamford CGG, Grove J. Evolutionary remodelling of N-terminal domain loops fine-tunes SARS-CoV-2 spike. EMBO Reports. 2022;23:e54322. doi: 10.15252/embr.202154322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Carabelli AM, Peacock TP, Thorne LG, Harvey WT, Hughes J, COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium. Peacock SJ, Barclay WS, de Silva TI, Towers GJ, Robertson DL. SARS-CoV-2 variant biology: immune escape, transmission and fitness. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2023;21:162–177. doi: 10.1038/s41579-022-00841-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Castiglione GM, Zhou L, Xu Z, Neiman Z, Hung CF, Duh EJ, editor Evolutionary pathways to SARS-CoV-2 resistance are opened and closed by epistasis acting on ACE2. PLOS Biology. 2021;19:e3001510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Chan CM, Woo PCY, Lau SKP, Tse H, Chen HL, Li F, Zheng BJ, Chen L, Huang JD, Yuen KY. RETRACTED: spike protein, s, of human coronavirus HKU1: role in viral life cycle and application in antibody detection. Experimental Biology and Medicine. 2008;233:1527–1536. doi: 10.3181/0806-RM-197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Changeux JP, Edelstein SJ. Allosteric mechanisms of signal transduction. Science. 2005;308:1424–1428. doi: 10.1126/science.1108595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Chi X, Yan R, Zhang J, Zhang G, Zhang Y, Hao M, Zhang Z, Fan P, Dong Y, Yang Y, Chen Z, Guo Y, Zhang J, Li Y, Song X, Chen Y, Xia L, Fu L, Hou L, Xu J, Yu C, Li J, Zhou Q, Chen W. A neutralizing human antibody binds to the N-terminal domain of the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Science. 2020;369:650–655. doi: 10.1126/science.abc6952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Collins SR, Schuldiner M, Krogan NJ, Weissman JS. A strategy for extracting and analyzing large-scale quantitative epistatic interaction data. Genome Biology. 2006;7:R63. doi: 10.1186/gb-2006-7-7-r63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Damas J, Hughes GM, Keough KC, Painter CA, Persky NS, Corbo M, Hiller M, Koepfli K-P, Pfenning AR, Zhao H, Genereux DP, Swofford R, Pollard KS, Ryder OA, Nweeia MT, Lindblad-Toh K, Teeling EC, Karlsson EK, Lewin HA. Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 predicted by comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates. PNAS. 2020;117:22311–22322. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2010146117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. de la Paz JA, Nartey CM, Yuvaraj M, Morcos F. Epistatic contributions promote the unification of incompatible models of neutral molecular evolution. PNAS. 2020;117:5873–5882. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1913071117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Deng X, Garcia-Knight MA, Khalid MM, Servellita V, Wang C, Morris MK, Sotomayor-González A, Glasner DR, Reyes KR, Gliwa AS, Reddy NP, Martin CSS, Federman S, Cheng J, Balcerek J, Taylor J, Streithorst JA, Miller S, Kumar GR, Sreekumar B, Chen PY, Schulze-Gahmen U, Taha TY, Hayashi J, Simoneau CR, McMahon S, Lidsky PV, Xiao Y, Hemarajata P, Green NM, Espinosa A, Kath C, Haw M, Bell J, Hacker JK, Hanson C, Wadford DA, Anaya C, Ferguson D, Lareau LF, Frankino PA, Shivram H, Wyman SK, Ott M, Andino R, Chiu CY. Transmission, Infectivity, and Antibody Neutralization of an Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variant in California Carrying a L452R Spike Protein Mutation. medRxiv. 2021 doi: 10.1101/2021.03.07.21252647. [DOI]
  31. Díaz-Salinas MA, Li Q, Ejemel M, Yurkovetskiy L, Luban J, Shen K, Wang Y, Munro JB. Conformational dynamics and allosteric modulation of the SARS-CoV-2 spike. eLife. 2022;11:e75433. doi: 10.7554/eLife.75433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Dicken SJ, Murray MJ, Thorne LG, Reuschl AK, Forrest C, Ganeshalingham M, Muir L, Kalemera MD, Palor M, McCoy LE, Jolly C, Towers GJ, Reeves MB, Grove J. Characterisation of B.1.1.7 and pangolin coronavirus spike provides insights on the evolutionary trajectory of SARS-CoV-2. bioRxiv. 2021 doi: 10.1101/2021.03.22.436468. [DOI]
  33. Dong A, Zhao J, Griffin C, Wu R. The genomic physics of COVID-19 pathogenesis and spread. Cells. 2021;11:80. doi: 10.3390/cells11010080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Doshi U, Holliday MJ, Eisenmesser EZ, Hamelberg D. Dynamical network of residue-residue contacts reveals coupled allosteric effects in recognition, catalysis, and mutation. PNAS. 2016;113:4735–4740. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523573113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Dror RO, Dirks RM, Grossman JP, Xu H, Shaw DE. Biomolecular simulation: A computational microscope for molecular biology. Annual Review of Biophysics. 2012;41:429–452. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-042910-155245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Earnest R, Uddin R, Matluk N, Renzette N, Turbett SE, Siddle KJ, Loreth C, Adams G, Tomkins-Tinch CH, Petrone ME, Rothman JE, Breban MI, Koch RT, Billig K, Fauver JR, Vogels CBF, Bilguvar K, De Kumar B, Landry ML, Peaper DR, Kelly K, Omerza G, Grieser H, Meak S, Martha J, Dewey HB, Kales S, Berenzy D, Carpenter-Azevedo K, King E, Huard RC, Novitsky V, Howison M, Darpolor J, Manne A, Kantor R, Smole SC, Brown CM, Fink T, Lang AS, Gallagher GR, Pitzer VE, Sabeti PC, Gabriel S, MacInnis BL, Tewhey R, Adams MD, Park DJ, Lemieux JE, Grubaugh ND, New England Variant Investigation Team Comparative transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 variants Delta and Alpha in New England, USA. Cell Reports. Medicine. 2022;3:100583. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ekeberg M, Lövkvist C, Lan Y, Weigt M, Aurell E. Improved contact prediction in proteins: Using pseudolikelihoods to infer Potts models. Physical Review E. 2013;87:012707. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.87.012707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Fraser BJ, Beldar S, Seitova A, Hutchinson A, Mannar D, Li Y, Kwon D, Tan R, Wilson RP, Leopold K, Subramaniam S, Halabelian L, Arrowsmith CH, Bénard F. Structure and activity of human TMPRSS2 protease implicated in SARS-CoV-2 activation. Nature Chemical Biology. 2022;18:963–971. doi: 10.1038/s41589-022-01059-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Frost SDW, Magalis BR, Kosakovsky Pond SL. Neutral theory and rapidly evolving viral pathogens. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018;35:1348–1354. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Garvin MR, Prates ET, Romero J, Cliff A, Machado Gazolla JGF, Pickholz M, Pavicic M, Jacobson D. Rapid Expansion of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is a result of adaptive epistasis. bioRxiv. 2021 doi: 10.1101/2021.08.03.454981. [DOI]
  41. Gerek ZN, Ozkan SB. Change in allosteric network affects binding affinities of PDZ domains. PLOS Computational Biology. 2011;7:e1002154. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Gobeil SMC, Janowska K, McDowell S, Mansouri K, Parks R, Manne K, Stalls V, Kopp MF, Henderson R, Edwards RJ, Haynes BF, Acharya P. D614G mutation alters SARS-CoV-2 spike conformation and enhances protease cleavage at the S1/S2 junction. Cell Reports. 2021a;34:108630. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Gobeil SM-C, Janowska K, McDowell S, Mansouri K, Parks R, Stalls V, Kopp MF, Manne K, Li D, Wiehe K, Saunders KO, Edwards RJ, Korber B, Haynes BF, Henderson R, Acharya P. Effect of natural mutations of SARS-CoV-2 on spike structure, conformation, and antigenicity. Science. 2021b;373:eabi6226. doi: 10.1126/science.abi6226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Gur M, Taka E, Yilmaz SZ, Kilinc C, Aktas U, Golcuk M. Conformational transition of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein between its closed and open states. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 2020;153:075101. doi: 10.1063/5.0011141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Harrigan P, Madhani HD, El-Samad H. Real-time genetic compensation defines the dynamic demands of feedback control. Cell. 2018;175:877–886. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Harvey WT, Carabelli AM, Jackson B, Gupta RK, Thomson EC, Harrison EM, Ludden C, Reeve R, Rambaut A, COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium. Peacock SJ, Robertson DL. SARS-CoV-2 variants, spike mutations and immune escape. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2021;19:409–424. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00573-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Henderson R, Edwards RJ, Mansouri K, Janowska K, Stalls V, Gobeil SMC, Kopp M, Li D, Parks R, Hsu AL, Borgnia MJ, Haynes BF, Acharya P. Controlling the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein conformation. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. 2020;27:925–933. doi: 10.1038/s41594-020-0479-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hoffmann M, Kleine-Weber H, Schroeder S, Krüger N, Herrler T, Erichsen S, Schiergens TS, Herrler G, Wu NH, Nitsche A, Müller MA, Drosten C, Pöhlmann S. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell. 2020;181:271–280. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hong Q, Han W, Li J, Xu S, Wang Y, Xu C, Li Z, Wang Y, Zhang C, Huang Z, Cong Y. Molecular basis of receptor binding and antibody neutralization of Omicron. Nature. 2022;604:546–552. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04581-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Houhamdi L, Gautret P, Hoang VT, Fournier P, Colson P, Raoult D. Characteristics of the first 1119 SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron variant cases. Journal of Medical Virology. 2022;94:2290–2295. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Huang Y, Yang C, Xu X-F, Xu W, Liu S-W. Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica. 2020;41:1141–1149. doi: 10.1038/s41401-020-0485-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Hünenberger PH. In: Advanced Computer Simulation. Holm C, Kremer K, editors. Springer; 2005. Thermostat Algorithms for molecular Dynamics simulations; pp. 105–149. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Jackson CB, Farzan M, Chen B, Choe H. Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology. 2022;23:3–20. doi: 10.1038/s41580-021-00418-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kazan IC, Sharma P, Rahman MI, Bobkov A, Fromme R, Ghirlanda G, Ozkan SB. Design of novel cyanovirin-N variants by modulation of binding dynamics through distal mutations. eLife. 2022;11:eLife. doi: 10.7554/eLife.67474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kazan IC, Mills JH, Ozkan SB. Allosteric regulatory control in dihydrofolate reductase is revealed by dynamic asymmetry. Protein Science. 2023;32:e4700. doi: 10.1002/pro.4700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kemp SA, Collier DA, Datir RP, Ferreira IATM, Gayed S, Jahun A, Hosmillo M, Rees-Spear C, Mlcochova P, Lumb IU, Roberts DJ, Chandra A, Temperton N, CITIID-NIHR BioResource COVID-19 Collaboration. COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium. Sharrocks K, Blane E, Modis Y, Leigh KE, Briggs JAG, van Gils MJ, Smith KGC, Bradley JR, Smith C, Doffinger R, Ceron-Gutierrez L, Barcenas-Morales G, Pollock DD, Goldstein RA, Smielewska A, Skittrall JP, Gouliouris T, Goodfellow IG, Gkrania-Klotsas E, Illingworth CJR, McCoy LE, Gupta RK. SARS-CoV-2 evolution during treatment of chronic infection. Nature. 2021;592:277–282. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03291-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Keskin O, Bahar I, Jernigan RL, Beutler JA, Shoemaker RH, Sausville EA, Covell DG. Characterization of anticancer agents by their growth inhibitory activity and relationships to mechanism of action and structure. Anti-Cancer Drug Design. 2000;15:79–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Khan A, Zia T, Suleman M, Khan T, Ali SS, Abbasi AA, Mohammad A, Wei D-Q. Higher infectivity of the SARS-CoV-2 new variants is associated with K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y mutants: An insight from structural data. Journal of Cellular Physiology. 2021;236:7045–7057. doi: 10.1002/jcp.30367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim H, Zou T, Modi C, Dörner K, Grunkemeyer TJ, Chen L, Fromme R, Matz MV, Ozkan SB, Wachter RM. A hinge migration mechanism unlocks the evolution of green-to-red photoconversion in GFP-like proteins. Structure. 2015;23:34–43. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2014.11.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kim S, Nguyen TT, Taitt AS, Jhun H, Park H-Y, Kim S-H, Kim Y-G, Song EY, Lee Y, Yum H, Shin K-C, Choi YK, Song C-S, Yeom SC, Kim B, Netea M, Kim S. SARS-CoV-2 omicron mutation is faster than the chase: multiple mutations on Spike/ACE2 interaction residues. Immune Network. 2021;21:e38. doi: 10.4110/in.2021.21.e38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kimura M. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press; 1983. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Kirchdoerfer RN, Cottrell CA, Wang N, Pallesen J, Yassine HM, Turner HL, Corbett KS, Graham BS, McLellan JS, Ward AB. Pre-fusion structure of a human coronavirus spike protein. Nature. 2016;531:118–121. doi: 10.1038/nature17200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Kistler KE, Huddleston J, Bedford T. Rapid and parallel adaptive mutations in spike S1 drive clade success in SARS-CoV-2. Cell Host & Microbe. 2022;30:545–555. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2022.03.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Klinakis A, Cournia Z, Rampias T. N-terminal domain mutations of the spike protein are structurally implicated in epitope recognition in emerging SARS-CoV-2 strains. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2021;19:5556–5567. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.10.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Kolbaba-Kartchner B, Kazan IC, Mills JH, Ozkan SB. The role of rigid residues in modulating TEM-1 β-lactamase function and thermostability. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22:2895. doi: 10.3390/ijms22062895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kumar A, Glembo TJ, Ozkan SB. The role of conformational dynamics and allostery in the disease development of human ferritin. Biophysical Journal. 2015;109:1273–1281. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2015.06.060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Kumar S, Patel R. Neutral theory, disease mutations, and personal exomes. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018;35:1297–1303. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018;35:1547–1549. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Kumar S, Tao Q, Weaver S, Sanderford M, Caraballo-Ortiz MA, Sharma S, Pond SLK, Miura S. An evolutionary portrait of the progenitor SARS-CoV-2 and Its dominant offshoots in COVID-19 pandemic. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2021;38:3046–3059. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kuzmanic A, Bowman GR, Juarez-Jimenez J, Michel J, Gervasio FL. Investigating cryptic binding sites by molecular dynamics simulations. Accounts of Chemical Research. 2020;53:654–661. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Labbadia J, Morimoto RI. The biology of proteostasis in aging and disease. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 2015;84:435–464. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060614-033955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Laiton-Donato K, Franco-Muñoz C, Álvarez-Díaz DA, Ruiz-Moreno HA, Usme-Ciro JA, Prada DA, Reales-González J, Corchuelo S, Herrera-Sepúlveda MT, Naizaque J, Santamaría G, Rivera J, Rojas P, Ortiz JH, Cardona A, Malo D, Prieto-Alvarado F, Gómez FR, Wiesner M, Martínez MLO, Mercado-Reyes M. Characterization of the emerging B.1.621 variant of interest of SARS-CoV-2. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2021;95:105038. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2021.105038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Lan J, Ge J, Yu J, Shan S, Zhou H, Fan S, Zhang Q, Shi X, Wang Q, Zhang L, Wang X. Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound to the ACE2 receptor. Nature. 2020;581:215–220. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2180-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Larrimore KE, Kazan IC, Kannan L, Kendle RP, Jamal T, Barcus M, Bolia A, Brimijoin S, Zhan C-G, Ozkan SB, Mor TS. Plant-expressed cocaine hydrolase variants of butyrylcholinesterase exhibit altered allosteric effects of cholinesterase activity and increased inhibitor sensitivity. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:10419. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10571-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Levy RM, Haldane A, Flynn WF. Potts Hamiltonian models of protein co-variation, free energy landscapes, and evolutionary fitness. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. 2017;43:55–62. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2016.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Liu Y, Bahar I. Sequence evolution correlates with structural dynamics. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2012;29:2253–2263. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Liu L, Tamura K, Sanderford M, Gray VE, Kumar S. A molecular evolutionary reference for the human variome. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2016;33:245–254. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msv198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Liu X, Liu X, Zhou J, Dong Y, Jiang W, Jiang W. Rampant C-to-U deamination accounts for the intrinsically high mutation rate in SARS-CoV-2 spike gene. RNA. 2022;28:917–926. doi: 10.1261/rna.079160.122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Ma B, Nussinov R. Conformational footprints. Nature Chemical Biology. 2016;12:890–891. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Maguid S, Fernández-Alberti S, Parisi G, Echave J. Evolutionary conservation of protein backbone flexibility. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 2006;63:448–457. doi: 10.1007/s00239-005-0209-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Maguid S, Fernandez-Alberti S, Echave J. Evolutionary conservation of protein vibrational dynamics. Gene. 2008;422:7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2008.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Maher MC, Bartha I, Weaver S, di Iulio J, Ferri E, Soriaga L, Lempp FA, Hie BL, Bryson B, Berger B, Robertson DL, Snell G, Corti D, Virgin HW, Kosakovsky Pond SL, Telenti A. Predicting the mutational drivers of future SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Science Translational Medicine. 2022;14:eabk3445. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abk3445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Maier JA, Martinez C, Kasavajhala K, Wickstrom L, Hauser KE, Simmerling C. ff14SB: improving the accuracy of protein side chain and backbone parameters from ff99SB. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. 2015;11:3696–3713. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Majumder S, Chaudhuri D, Datta J, Giri K. Exploring the intrinsic dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV spike glycoprotein through normal mode analysis using anisotropic network model. Journal of Molecular Graphics & Modelling. 2021;102:107778. doi: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2020.107778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Markov PV, Ghafari M, Beer M, Lythgoe K, Simmonds P, Stilianakis NI, Katzourakis A. The evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2023;21:361–379. doi: 10.1038/s41579-023-00878-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Menni C, Valdes AM, Polidori L, Antonelli M, Penamakuri S, Nogal A, Louca P, May A, Figueiredo JC, Hu C, Molteni E, Canas L, Österdahl MF, Modat M, Sudre CH, Fox B, Hammers A, Wolf J, Capdevila J, Chan AT, David SP, Steves CJ, Ourselin S, Spector TD. Symptom prevalence, duration, and risk of hospital admission in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during periods of omicron and delta variant dominance: a prospective observational study from the ZOE COVID Study. The Lancet. 2022;399:1618–1624. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00327-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Mikulska-Ruminska K, Shrivastava I, Krieger J, Zhang S, Li H, Bayır H, Wenzel SE, VanDemark AP, Kagan VE, Bahar I. Characterization of differential dynamics, specificity, and allostery of lipoxygenase family members. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2019;59:2496–2508. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Millet JK, Whittaker GR. Host cell entry of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus after two-step, furin-mediated activation of the spike protein. PNAS. 2014;111:15214–15219. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1407087111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Millet JK, Whittaker GR. Host cell proteases: Critical determinants of coronavirus tropism and pathogenesis. Virus Research. 2015;202:120–134. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2014.11.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Mishra SK, Jernigan RL. Protein dynamic communities from elastic network models align closely to the communities defined by molecular dynamics. PLOS ONE. 2018;13:e0199225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Modi T, Ozkan SB. Mutations utilize dynamic allostery to confer resistance in TEM-1 β-lactamase. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2018;19:3808. doi: 10.3390/ijms19123808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Modi T, Campitelli P, Kazan IC, Ozkan SB. Protein folding stability and binding interactions through the lens of evolution: a dynamical perspective. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. 2021a;66:207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Modi T, Risso VA, Martinez-Rodriguez S, Gavira JA, Mebrat MD, Van Horn WD, Sanchez-Ruiz JM, Banu Ozkan S. Hinge-shift mechanism as a protein design principle for the evolution of β-lactamases from substrate promiscuity to specificity. Nature Communications. 2021b;12:1852. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22089-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Moulana A, Dupic T, Phillips AM, Chang J, Nieves S, Roffler AA, Greaney AJ, Starr TN, Bloom JD, Desai MM. Compensatory epistasis maintains ACE2 affinity in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1. Nature Communications. 2022;13:7011. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34506-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Moulana A, Dupic T, Phillips AM, Chang J, Roffler AA, Greaney AJ, Starr TN, Bloom JD, Desai MM. The landscape of antibody binding affinity in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 evolution. eLife. 2023;12:e83442. doi: 10.7554/eLife.83442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Neher RA. Contributions of adaptation and purifying selection to SARS-CoV-2 evolution. Virus Evolution. 2022;8:veac113. doi: 10.1093/ve/veac113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Nevin Gerek Z, Kumar S, Banu Ozkan S. Structural dynamics flexibility informs function and evolution at a proteome scale. Evolutionary Applications. 2013;6:423–433. doi: 10.1111/eva.12052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Nguyen HL, Lan PD, Thai NQ, Nissley DA, O’Brien EP, Li MS. Does SARS-CoV-2 bind to human ACE2 More strongly than does SARS-CoV? The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B. 2020;124:7336–7347. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.0c04511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Nielsen BF, Li Y, Sneppen K, Simonsen L, Viboud C, Levin SA, Grenfell BT. Immune heterogeneity and epistasis explain punctuated evolution of SARS-CoV-2. bioRxiv. 2022 doi: 10.1101/2022.07.27.22278129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Nussinov R, Tsai CJ. Allostery in disease and in drug discovery. Cell. 2013;153:293–305. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. O’Rourke KF, Gorman SD, Boehr DD. Biophysical and computational methods to analyze amino acid interaction networks in proteins. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2016;14:245–251. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2016.06.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Ose NJ, Butler BM, Kumar A, Kazan IC, Sanderford M, Kumar S, Ozkan SB. Dynamic coupling of residues within proteins as a mechanistic foundation of many enigmatic pathogenic missense variants. PLOS Computational Biology. 2022a;18:e1010006. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Ose NJ, Campitelli P, Patel RP, Ozkan SB, Kumar S. Protein dynamics provide mechanistic insights about the epistatic relationships among highly observed potentially adaptive missense variants. Biophysical Journal. 2022b;121:456a. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2021.11.488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Otten R, Liu L, Kenner LR, Clarkson MW, Mavor D, Tawfik DS, Kern D, Fraser JS. Rescue of conformational dynamics in enzyme catalysis by directed evolution. Nature Communications. 2018;9:1314. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03562-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Ozkan SB. Dfi-DCI. swh:1:rev:7a3a54bbe03e8356036bdb164ad1b2c01c103cc5Software Heritage. 2024 https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:9f38b3c516e31bcfe8b796f7de4082eec6ecba4c;origin=https://github.com/SBOZKAN/DFI-DCI;visit=swh:1:snp:d723c9bc100d4a98dab72447e9b39707e2e33f9b;anchor=swh:1:rev:7a3a54bbe03e8356036bdb164ad1b2c01c103cc5
  106. Ozono S, Zhang Y, Ode H, Sano K, Tan TS, Imai K, Miyoshi K, Kishigami S, Ueno T, Iwatani Y, Suzuki T, Tokunaga K. SARS-CoV-2 D614G spike mutation increases entry efficiency with enhanced ACE2-binding affinity. Nature Communications. 2021;12:848. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21118-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Pearlman DA, Case DA, Caldwell JW, Ross WS, Cheatham TE, DeBolt S, Ferguson D, Seibel G, Kollman P. AMBER, a package of computer programs for applying molecular mechanics, normal mode analysis, molecular dynamics and free energy calculations to simulate the structural and energetic properties of molecules. Computer Physics Communications. 1995;91:1–41. doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(95)00041-D. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Peters AD, Lively CM. The red queen and fluctuating epistasis: a population genetic analysis of antagonistic coevolution. The American Naturalist. 1999;154:393–405. doi: 10.1086/303247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Pipitò L, Rujan R-M, Reynolds CA, Deganutti G. Molecular dynamics studies reveal structural and functional features of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. BioEssays. 2022;44:e2200060. doi: 10.1002/bies.202200060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Qu P, Faraone JN, Evans JP, Zheng YM, Carlin C, Anghelina M, Stevens P, Fernandez S, Jones D, Panchal A, Saif LJ, Oltz EM, Xu K, Gumina RJ, Liu SL. Extraordinary evasion of neutralizing antibody response by omicron XBB.1.5, CH.1.1 and CA.3.1 variants. bioRxiv. 2023 doi: 10.1101/2023.01.16.524244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  111. Raghuvamsi PV, Tulsian NK, Samsudin F, Qian X, Purushotorman K, Yue G, Kozma MM, Hwa WY, Lescar J, Bond PJ, MacAry PA, Anand GS. SARS-CoV-2 S protein:ACE2 interaction reveals novel allosteric targets. eLife. 2021;10:e63646. doi: 10.7554/eLife.63646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Ramarao-Milne P, Jain Y, Sng LMF, Hosking B, Lee C, Bayat A, Kuiper M, Wilson LOW, Twine NA, Bauer DC. Data-driven platform for identifying variants of interest in COVID-19 virus. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2022;20:2942–2950. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2022.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Rehman SU, Shafique L, Ihsan A, Liu Q. Evolutionary trajectory for the emergence of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Pathogens. 2020;9:240. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9030240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Rizzato F, Coucke A, de Leonardis E, Barton JP, Tubiana J, Monasson R, Cocco S. Inference of compressed Potts graphical models. Physical Review. E. 2020;101:012309. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.101.012309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Rochman ND, Wolf YI, Faure G, Mutz P, Zhang F, Koonin EV. Ongoing global and regional adaptive evolution of SARS-CoV-2. PNAS. 2021;118:e2104241118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2104241118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Rochman ND, Faure G, Wolf YI, Freddolino PL, Zhang F, Koonin EV. Epistasis at the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain interface and the propitiously boring implications for vaccine escape. mBio. 2022;13:e0013522. doi: 10.1128/mbio.00135-22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Rodriguez-Rivas J, Croce G, Muscat M, Weigt M. Epistatic models predict mutable sites in SARS-CoV-2 proteins and epitopes. PNAS. 2022;119:e2113118119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2113118119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Rojas Echenique JI, Kryazhimskiy S, Nguyen Ba AN, Desai MM, editor Modular epistasis and the compensatory evolution of gene deletion mutants. PLOS Genetics. 2019;15:e1007958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Saavedra HG, Wrabl JO, Anderson JA, Li J, Hilser VJ. Dynamic allostery can drive cold adaptation in enzymes. Nature. 2018;558:324–328. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0183-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Saputri DS, Li S, van Eerden FJ, Rozewicki J, Xu Z, Ismanto HS, Davila A, Teraguchi S, Katoh K, Standley DM. Flexible, functional, and familiar: characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein evolution. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2020;11:2112. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.02112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Sawle L, Ghosh K. Convergence of molecular dynamics simulation of protein native states: feasibility vs self-consistency dilemma. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. 2016;12:861–869. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Sekhar A, Kay LE. An NMR view of protein dynamics in health and disease. Annual Review of Biophysics. 2019;48:297–319. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-052118-115647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Shang J, Wan Y, Luo C, Ye G, Geng Q, Auerbach A, Li F. Cell entry mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2. PNAS. 2020;117:11727–11734. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2003138117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Sheikh A, McMenamin J, Taylor B, Robertson C, Public Health Scotland and the EAVE II Collaborators SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness. The Lancet. 2021;397:2461–2462. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01358-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Shimagaki K, Weigt M. Selection of sequence motifs and generative Hopfield-Potts models for protein families. Physical Review E. 2019;100:032128. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.100.032128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Shoemark DK, Oliveira ASF, Davidson AD, Berger I, Schaffitzel C, Mulholland AJ. Molecular dynamics of spike variants in the locked conformation: RBD interfaces, fatty acid binding and furin cleavage sites. bioRxiv. 2022 doi: 10.1101/2022.05.06.490927. [DOI]
  127. Singh D, Yi SV. On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 2021;53:537–547. doi: 10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Socher E, Conrad M, Heger L, Paulsen F, Sticht H, Zunke F, Arnold P. Mutations in the B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduce receptor-binding affinity and induce a flexible link to the fusion peptide. Biomedicines. 2021;9:525. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9050525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. Spinello A, Saltalamacchia A, Borišek J, Magistrato A. Allosteric cross-talk among spike’s receptor-binding domain mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 South African variant triggers an effective hijacking of human cell receptor. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 2021;12:5987–5993. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Starr TN, Greaney AJ, Hannon WW, Loes AN, Hauser K, Dillen JR, Ferri E, Farrell AG, Dadonaite B, McCallum M, Matreyek KA, Corti D, Veesler D, Snell G, Bloom JD. Shifting mutational constraints in the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain during viral evolution. Science. 2022a;377:420–424. doi: 10.1126/science.abo7896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Starr TN, Greaney AJ, Stewart CM, Walls AC, Hannon WW, Veesler D, Bloom JD. Deep mutational scans for ACE2 binding, RBD expression, and antibody escape in the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 receptor-binding domains. PLOS Pathogens. 2022b;18:e1010951. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Starr TN, Zepeda SK, Walls AC, Greaney AJ, Alkhovsky S, Veesler D, Bloom JD. ACE2 binding is an ancestral and evolvable trait of sarbecoviruses. Nature. 2022c;603:913–918. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04464-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. Steinhauer DA. Role of hemagglutinin cleavage for the pathogenicity of influenza virus. Virology. 1999;258:1–20. doi: 10.1006/viro.1999.9716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Stevens AO, Kazan IC, Ozkan B, He Y. Investigating the allosteric response of the PICK1 PDZ domain to different ligands with all-atom simulations. Protein Science. 2022;31:e4474. doi: 10.1002/pro.4474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. Sun Y, Kollman PA. Hydrophobic solvation of methane and nonbond parameters of the TIP3P water model. Journal of Computational Chemistry. 1995;16:1164–1169. doi: 10.1002/jcc.540160910. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  136. Swint-Kruse L, Matthews KS, Smith PE, Pettitt BM. Comparison of simulated and experimentally determined dynamics for a variant of the Lacl DNA-binding domain, Nlac-P. Biophysical Journal. 1998;74:413–421. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3495(98)77798-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Sztain T, Ahn S-H, Bogetti AT, Casalino L, Goldsmith JA, Seitz E, McCool RS, Kearns FL, Acosta-Reyes F, Maji S, Mashayekhi G, McCammon JA, Ourmazd A, Frank J, McLellan JS, Chong LT, Amaro RE. A glycan gate controls opening of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Nature Chemistry. 2021;13:963–968. doi: 10.1038/s41557-021-00758-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Tan ZW, Tee WV, Samsudin F, Guarnera E, Bond PJ, Berezovsky IN. Allosteric perspective on the mutability and druggability of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. Structure. 2022;30:590–607. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2021.12.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Tang X, Wu C, Li X, Song Y, Yao X, Wu X, Duan Y, Zhang H, Wang Y, Qian Z, Cui J, Lu J. On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2. National Science Review. 2020;7:1012–1023. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaa036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Tay JH, Porter AF, Wirth W, Duchene S. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is driven by acceleration of the substitution rate. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2022;39:msac013. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msac013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. Teruel N, Crown M, Bashton M, Najmanovich R. Computational analysis of the effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant omicron spike protein mutations on dynamics, ACE2 binding and propensity for immune escape. bioRxiv. 2021a doi: 10.1101/2021.12.14.472622. [DOI]
  142. Teruel N, Mailhot O, Najmanovich RJ. Modelling conformational state dynamics and its role on infection for SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein variants. PLOS Computational Biology. 2021b;17:e1009286. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Thye AYK, Law JWF, Pusparajah P, Letchumanan V, Chan KG, Lee LH. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOCs): an impending global crisis. Biomedicines. 2021;9:1303. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Twohig KA, Nyberg T, Zaidi A, Thelwall S, Sinnathamby MA, Aliabadi S, Seaman SR, Harris RJ, Hope R, Lopez-Bernal J, Gallagher E, Charlett A, De Angelis D, Presanis AM, Dabrera G, COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium Hospital admission and emergency care attendance risk for SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) compared with alpha (B.1.1.7) variants of concern: a cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022;22:35–42. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00475-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Verkhivker G. Allosteric determinants of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein binding with nanobodies: examining mechanisms of mutational escape and sensitivity of the omicron variant. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022;23:2172. doi: 10.3390/ijms23042172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Walls AC, Park YJ, Tortorici MA, Wall A, McGuire AT, Veesler D. Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Cell. 2020;181:281–292. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Wang Q, Guo Y, Iketani S, Nair MS, Li Z, Mohri H, Wang M, Yu J, Bowen AD, Chang JY, Shah JG, Nguyen N, Chen Z, Meyers K, Yin MT, Sobieszczyk ME, Sheng Z, Huang Y, Liu L, Ho DD. Antibody evasion by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5. Nature. 2022a;608:603–608. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05053-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Wang Q, Iketani S, Li Z, Liu L, Guo Y, Huang Y, Bowen AD, Liu M, Wang M, Yu J, Valdez R, Lauring AS, Sheng Z, Wang HH, Gordon A, Liu L, Ho DD. Alarming antibody evasion properties of rising SARS-CoV-2 BQ and XBB subvariants. bioRxiv. 2022b doi: 10.1101/2022.11.23.517532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  149. Weisblum Y, Schmidt F, Zhang F, DaSilva J, Poston D, Lorenzi JC, Muecksch F, Rutkowska M, Hoffmann H-H, Michailidis E, Gaebler C, Agudelo M, Cho A, Wang Z, Gazumyan A, Cipolla M, Luchsinger L, Hillyer CD, Caskey M, Robbiani DF, Rice CM, Nussenzweig MC, Hatziioannou T, Bieniasz PD. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants. eLife. 2020;9:e61312. doi: 10.7554/eLife.61312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. Witte L, Baharani VA, Schmidt F, Wang Z, Cho A, Raspe R, Guzman-Cardozo C, Muecksch F, Canis M, Park DJ, Gaebler C, Caskey M, Nussenzweig MC, Hatziioannou T, Bieniasz PD. Epistasis lowers the genetic barrier to SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody escape. Nature Communications. 2023;14:302. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-35927-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, Goldsmith JA, Hsieh CL, Abiona O, Graham BS, McLellan JS. Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science. 2020;367:1260–1263. doi: 10.1126/science.abb2507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  152. Wrobel AG, Benton DJ, Xu P, Roustan C, Martin SR, Rosenthal PB, Skehel JJ, Gamblin SJ. SARS-CoV-2 and bat RaTG13 spike glycoprotein structures inform on virus evolution and furin-cleavage effects. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. 2020;27:763–767. doi: 10.1038/s41594-020-0468-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  153. Wu L, Zhou L, Mo M, Liu T, Wu C, Gong C, Lu K, Gong L, Zhu W, Xu Z. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron RBD shows weaker binding affinity than the currently dominant Delta variant to human ACE2. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. 2022;7:8. doi: 10.1038/s41392-021-00863-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. Xue Q, Liu X, Pan W, Zhang A, Fu J, Jiang G. Computational insights into the allosteric effect and dynamic structural features of the SARS-COV-2 spike protein. Chemistry. 2022;28:e202104215. doi: 10.1002/chem.202104215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  155. Yang QE, MacLean C, Papkou A, Pritchard M, Powell L, Thomas D, Andrey DO, Li M, Spiller B, Yang W, Walsh TR. Compensatory mutations modulate the competitiveness and dynamics of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance in Escherichia coli clones. The ISME Journal. 2020;14:861–865. doi: 10.1038/s41396-019-0578-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  156. Yue C, Song W, Wang L, Jian F, Chen X, Gao F, Shen Z, Wang Y, Wang X, Cao Y. Enhanced transmissibility of XBB.1.5 is contributed by both strong ACE2 binding and antibody evasion. bioRxiv. 2023 doi: 10.1101/2023.01.03.522427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  157. Yurkovetskiy L, Wang X, Pascal KE, Tomkins-Tinch C, Nyalile TP, Wang Y, Baum A, Diehl WE, Dauphin A, Carbone C, Veinotte K, Egri SB, Schaffner SF, Lemieux JE, Munro JB, Rafique A, Barve A, Sabeti PC, Kyratsous CA, Dudkina NV, Shen K, Luban J. Structural and functional analysis of the D614G SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variant. Cell. 2020;183:739–751. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  158. Zeng HL, Dichio V, Rodríguez Horta E, Thorell K, Aurell E. Global analysis of more than 50,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomes reveals epistasis between eight viral genes. PNAS. 2020;117:31519–31526. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2012331117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  159. Zhang J, Cai Y, Xiao T, Lu J, Peng H, Sterling SM, Walsh RM, Jr, Rits-Volloch S, Zhu H, Woosley AN, Yang W, Sliz P, Chen B. Structural impact on SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by D614G substitution. Science. 2021;372:525–530. doi: 10.1126/science.abf2303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  160. Zhou T, Tsybovsky Y, Gorman J, Rapp M, Cerutti G, Chuang GY, Katsamba PS, Sampson JM, Schön A, Bimela J, Boyington JC, Nazzari A, Olia AS, Shi W, Sastry M, Stephens T, Stuckey J, Teng IT, Wang P, Wang S, Zhang B, Friesner RA, Ho DD, Mascola JR, Shapiro L, Kwong PD. Cryo-EM structures of SARS-CoV-2 spike without and with ACE2 reveal a pH-dependent switch to mediate endosomal positioning of receptor-binding domains. Cell Host & Microbe. 2020;28:867–879. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2020.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

eLife assessment

Donald Hamelberg 1

This important study investigates various variants of the SARS-COV-2 spike protein using established computational methods, complemented by experimental validation efforts. The evidence, bolstered by an evolutionary approach and protein dynamics, is solid. Placing this research in the broader context of the field could further enrich the article. It will interest biophysicists focused on allostery and protein evolution.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Anonymous

The authors set out to identify CAPs (Candidate Adaptive Polymorphyisms), i.e., simply put mutations that carry a potential functional advantage, and utilize computational methods based on the perturbation of C-alpha positions with an Elastic Network Model to determine if dynamics of CAP residues are different in any way.

The authors have addressed the main methodological concerns.

However, one point remains. The specific comparison of which CAPs have been previously identified by other means, particularly with other computational methods that look into dynamics is still lacking. It is unfortunate that the authors do not present such analysis, particularly with respect to single point mutational analysis of Teruel et al. in Plos Comp. Bio. If CAP positions were previously identified by other means it adds strength to the methodology used by the authors. The authors also do not discuss their results in light of the work of Lam et al. (Sci. Comm, 2020) where an evolutionary analysis of Spike/ACE2 binding across homologues is performed. I believe that such deeper discussion of the current results in light of previous work, adds strength to the analysis presented in this manuscript as the methodology is different. Even if all results were not new, with the method being different from the other means by which such results were obtained, it would be still a worthy contribution to the field. Furthermore, for the community at large trying to understand the importance of particular positions in Spike, knowing that a particular position identified here was also identified by works X, Y, Z adds a lot of to the field. I can only think that the authors may imagine that if one of their CAPs was identified by other means previously, it takes away from the merit of their work, but it is actually the opposite. I urge the authors to not brush away this. In fact, more important than any methodological aspect of the present work, this strengthening of evidence for particular positions by several independent methods is the most important evidence that the authors can contribute to the field.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Anonymous

Summary:

The manuscript uses a combination of evolutionary approaches and structural/dynamics observations to provide mechanistic insights in the adaptation of the Spike protein during the evolution of SARS-COV-2 variants. The conclusion that CAP sites should be taken in particular account when considering the impact of the emergence of new strains and mutations is warranted.

Strengths:

The results presented in this work are very well outlined with well-written text, pleasant and well-described pictures, didactical and clear description of the methods, e.g. the discussion of how the MD equilibration procedure is applied and evaluated is clear and well argument.

The citation of relevant similar results with different approaches strengthens the reasoning; in particular, comparing the calculated scores with previous experimentally obtained data is one of the strongest points of the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

There are no replicas of the molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, understandable since it's not a MD-focused paper. However, the comparison of multiple replicas could enhance the reliability of the findings.

eLife. 2024 May 7;12:RP92063. doi: 10.7554/eLife.92063.3.sa3

Author response

Nicholas James Ose 1, Paul Campitelli 2, Tushar Modi 3, I Can Kazan 4, Sudhir Kumar 5, Sefika Banu Ozkan 6

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

We would like to extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their meticulous analysis and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have revised our paper based on the suggestions regarding supporting literature and the theory behind CAPs along with detailed insights regarding our methods. Their suggestions have been extremely useful in strengthening the clarity and rigor of our manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) There are no obvious problems with this paper and it is relatively straightforward. There are some challenges that I would like to suggest. These variants have multiple mutations, so it would be interesting if you could drill down to find out which mutation is the most important for the collective changes reported here. I would like to see a sequence alignment of these variants, perhaps in the supplemental material, just to get some indication of the extent of mutations involved.

Finding the most important mutation within a set is a tricky question, as each mutation changes the way future mutations will affect function due to epistasis. Indeed, this is what we aim to explore in this work. To illustrate this point, we included a new supplementary figure S5A. Three critical mutations that emerged quickly, and were frequently observed in other dominant variants, were S477N, T478K, and N501Y. Thus, we computed the EpiScore values of these three mutations, with several critical residues contributing to hACE2 binding. The EpiScore distribution indicates that residues 477, 478, and 501 have strong epistatic (i.e., non-additive) interactions, as indicated by EpiScore values above 2.0.

To further investigate these epistatic interactions, we first conducted MD simulations and computed the DFI profile of these three single mutants. We analyzed how different the DFI scores of the hACE2 binding interface residues of the RBD are, across three single mutants with Omicron, Delta, and Omicron XBB variants (Fig S5B). Fig S5B shows how mutations at these particular sites affect the binding interface DFI in various backgrounds, as the three mutations are also observed in the Omicron, XBB, and XBB 1.5 variants. If the difference in the DFI profile of the mutant and the given variant is close to 0, then we could safely state that this mutation affected the variant the most. However, what we observe is quite the opposite: the DFI profile of the mutation is significantly different in different variant backgrounds. While these mutations may change overall behavior, their individual contributions to overall function are more difficult to pin down because overall function is dependent on the non-additive interactions between many different residues.

Author response image 1. (A) Three critical mutations that emerged quickly, and were frequently observed in other dominant variants, were S477N, T478K, and N501Y.

Author response image 1.

EpiScores of sites 477, 478, and 501 with one another are shown with k = the binding interface of the open chain. These residues are highly epistatic, producing higher responses than expected when perturbed together. (B) The difference in the dynamic flexibility profiles between the single mutants and the most common variants for the hACE2 binding residues of the RBD. DFI profiles exhibit significant variation from zero, and also show different flexibility in each background variant, highlighting the critical non-additive interactions of the other mutation in the given background variant. Thus, these three critical mutations, impacting binding affinity, do not solely contribute to the binding. There are epistatic interactions with the other mutations in VOCs that shape the dynamics of the binding interface to modulate binding affinity with hACE2.

As we discussed above, while the epistatic interactions are crucial and the collective impact of the mutations shape the mutational landscape of the spike protein, we would like note that mutation S486P is one of the critical mutations we identify, modulating both antibody and hACE2 binding and our analysis reveals the strong non-additive interactions with the other mutational sites. This mutational site appears in both XBB1.5 and earlier Omicron strains which highlights its importance in functional evolution of the spike protein. CAPs 346R, 486F, and 498Q also may be important, as they have a high EpiScore, indicating critical epistatic interaction with many mutation sites.

Regarding to the suggestion about presenting the alignment of the different variants, we have attached a mutation table, highlighting the mutated residues for each strain compared to the reference sequence as supplemental Figure S1 along with the full alignment file.

(2) Also, I am wondering if it would be possible to insert some of these flexibilities and their correlations directly into the elastic network models to enable a simpler interpretation of these results. I realize this is beyond the scope of the present work, but such an effort might help in understanding these relatively complex effects.

This is great suggestion. A similar analysis has been performed for different proteins by Mcleash (See doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2015.08.009) by modulating the spring constants of specific position to alter specific flexibility and evaluate change in elastic free energy to identify critical mutation (in particular, allosteric mutation) sites. We will be happy to pursue this as future work.

Minor

(3) 1 typo on line 443 - should be binding instead of biding.

Fixed, thanks for spotting that.

(4) The two shades of blue in Fig. 4B were not distinguishable in my version.

To fix this, we have changed the overlapping residues between Delta and Omicron to a higher contrast shade of blue.

(5) Compensatory is often used in an entirely different way - additional mutations that help to recover native function in the presence of a deleterious mutation.

Although our previous study (Ose et al. 2022, Biophysical Journal) shows that compensatory mutations were generally additive, the two ideas are not one and the same. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Therefore, to clarify, we have now described our results in terms of dynamic additivity, rather than compensation.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The authors note that the identified CAPs overlap with those of others (Cagliani et al. 2020; Singh and Yi 2021; Starr, Zepeda, et al. 2022). In itself, this merits a deeper discussion and explicit indication of which positions are not identified. However, there is one point that I believe may represent a fundamental flaw in this study in that the calculation of EP from the alignment of S proteins ignores entirely the differences in the interacting interface with which S for different coronaviruses in the alignment interact in the different receptors in each host species. This may be the reason why so many "CAPs" are in the RBD. The authors should at the very least make a convincing case of why they are not simply detecting constraints imposed by the different interacting partners, at least in the case of positions within the RBD interface with ACE2. Another point that the authors should discuss is that ACE2 is not the only receptor that facilitates infection, TMPRSS2 and possibly others have been identified as well. The results should be discussed in light of this.

To begin with, we have now explicitly noted (on line 135) that “sites 478, 486, 498, and 681 have already been implicated in SARS-CoV-2 evolution, leaving the remaining 11 CAPs as undiscovered candidate sites for adaptation.” Evolutionary analyses are done using orthologous protein sequences, so there is no way to integrate information on different receptors in each host species in the calculation of EPs. However, we appreciate that the preponderance of CAPs in the RBD is likely due to different binding environments. We have added the following text (on line 83) to clarify our point: “Adaptation in this case means a virus which can successfully infect human hosts. As CAPs are unexpected polymorphisms under neutral theory, their existence implies a non-neutral effect. This can come in the form of functional changes (Liu et al. 2016) or compensation for functional changes (Ose et al. 2022). Therefore, we suspect that these CAPs, being unexpected changes from coronaviruses across other host species with different binding substrates, may be partially responsible for the functional change of allowing human infection.” This hypothesis is supported by the overlap of CAPs we identified with the positions identified in other studies (e.g., 478, 486, 498, and 681). Binding to TMPRSS2 and other substrates are also covered by this analysis as it is a measure of overall evolutionary fitness, rather than binding to any specific substrate. Our paper does focus on discussing hACE2 binding and mentions furin cleavage, but indeed lacks discussion on the role of TMPRSS2. We have added the following text to line 157: “Another host cell protease, TMPRSS2, facilitates viral attachment to the surface of target cells upon binding either to sites Arg815/Ser816, or Arg685/Ser686 which overlaps with the furin cleavage site 676-689, further emphasizing the importance of this area (Hoffmann et al. 2020b; Fraser et al. 2022).”

(2) Turning now to the computational methods utilized to study dynamics, I have serious reservations about the novelty of the results as well as the validity of the methodology. First of all, the authors mention the work of Teruel et al. (PLOS Comp Bio 2021) in an extremely superficial fashion and do not mention at all a second manuscript by Teruel et al. (Biorxiv 2021.12.14.472622 (2021)). However, the work by Teruel et al. identifies positions and specific mutations that affect the dynamics of S and the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in light of immune escape, ACE2 binding, and open and closed state dynamics. The specific differences in approach should be noted but the results specifically should be compared. This omission is evident throughout the manuscript. Several other groups have also published on the use of nomal-mode analysis methods to understand the Spike protein, among them Verkhivker et al., Zhou et al., Majumder et al., etc.

Thank you for your suggestions. Upon further examination of the listed papers, we have added citations to other groups employing similar methods. However, it's worth noting that the results of Teruel et al.'s studies are generally not directly comparable to our own. Particularly, they examine specific individual mutations and overall dynamical signatures associated with them, whereas our results are always considered in the context of epistasis and joint effects with CAPs, and all mutations belong to the common variants. Although important mutations may be highlighted in both cases, it is for very different reasons. Nevertheless, we provide a more detailed mention of the results of both studies. See lines 178, 255, and 393.

(3) The last concern that I have is with respect to the methodology. The dynamic couplings and the derived index (DCI) are entirely based on the use of the elastic network model presented which is strictly sequence-agnostic. Only C-alpha positions are taken into consideration and no information about the side-chain is considered in any manner. Of course, the specific sequence of a protein will affect the unique placement of C-alpha atoms (i.e., mutations affect structure), therefore even ANM or ENM can to some extent predict the effect of mutations in as much as these have an effect on the structure, either experimentally determined or correctly and even incorrectly modelled. However, such an approach needs to be discussed in far deeper detail when it comes to positions on the surface of a protein such that the reader can gauge if the observed effects are the result of modelling errors.

We would like to clarify that most of our results do not involve simulations of different variants, but rather how characteristic mutation sites for those variants contribute to overall dynamics. For the full spike, we operate on only two simulations: open and closed. When we do analyze different variants, starting on line 438, the observed difference does not come from the structure, but from the covariance matrix obtained from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, which are sensitive to single amino acid changes.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) On line 99 there is a misspelling, 'withing'.

It has been fixed. Thanks for spotting that.

(2) Some graphical suggestions to make the figures easier to read:

In Figure 1C, a labeled circle around the important sites, the receptor binding domain, and the Furin cleavage site, would help the reader orient themselves. Moreover, it would make clear which CAPs are NOT in the noteworthy sites described in the text.

Good idea. We have added transparent spheres and labels to show hACE2 binding sites and Furin cleavage sites.

In Figure 2C the colors are a bit low contrast; moreover, there are multiple text sizes on the same figure which should perhaps be avoided to ensure legibility.

We have made yellow brighter and standardized font sizes.

Figure 3 is a bit dry, perhaps indicating in which bins the 'interesting' sites could be informative.

Thank you for the suggestion, but the overall goal of Figure 3 is to illustrate that the mutational landscape is governed by the equilibrium dynamics in which flexible sites undergo more mutations during the evolution of the CoV2 spike protein. Therefore, adding additional positional information may complicate our message.

Figure 4, the previous suggestions about readability apply.

We ensured same sized text and higher contrast colors.

Figure 5B, the residue labels are too small.

We increased the font size of the residue labels.

In Figure 8 maybe adding Delta to let the reader orient themselves would be helpful to the discussion.

Unfortunately, there is no single work that has experimentally quantified binding affinities towards hACE2 for all the variants. When we conducted the same analysis for the Delta variant in Figure 8, the experimental values were obtained from a different source (doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.001) and the values were significantly different from the experimental work we used for Omicron (Yue et al. 2023). When we could adjust based on the difference in experimentally measured binding affinity values of the original Wuhan strain in these two separate studies, we observed a similar correlation, as seen below. However, we think this might not be a proper representation. Therefore, we chose to keep the original figure.

Author response image 2. The %DFI calculations for variants Delta, Omicron, XBB, and XBB 1.

Author response image 2.

5. (A) %DFI profile of the variants are plotted in the same panel. The grey shaded areas and dashed lines indicate the ACE2 binding regions, whereas the red dashed lines show the antibody binding residues. (B) The sum of %DFI values of RBD-hACE2 interface residues. The trend of total %DFI with the log of Kd values overlaps with the one seen with the experiments. (C) The RBD antibody binding residues are used to calculate the sum of %DFI. The ranking captured with the total %DFI agrees with the susceptibility fold reduction values from the experiments.

(3) Replicas of the MD simulations would make the conclusions stronger in my opinion.

We ran a 1µs long simulation and performed convergence analysis for the MD simulations using the prior work (Sawle L, Ghosh K. 2016.) More importantly, we also evaluated the statistical significance of computed DFI values as explained in detail below (Please see the answer to question 3 of Reviewer #3 (Public Review):)

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

(1) A longer discussion of how the 19 orthologous coronavirus sequences were chosen would be helpful, as the rest of the paper hinges on this initial choice.

The following explanation has been added on line 114: EP scores of the amino acid variants of the S protein were obtained using a Maximum Likelihood phylogeny (Kumar et al. 2018) built from 19 orthologous coronavirus sequences. Sequences were selected by examining available non-human sequences with a sequence identity of 70% or above to the human SARS CoV-2’s S protein sequence. This cutoff allows for divergence over evolutionary history such that each amino acid position had ample time to experience purifying selection, whilst limiting ourselves to closely related coronaviruses. (Figure 1A).

(2) The 'reasonable similarity' with previously published data is not well defined, nor there was any comment about some of the residues analyzed (namely 417-484). We have revised this part of the manuscript and add to the revised version.

We removed the line about reasonable similarity as it was vague, added a line about residues 417-484, and revised the text accordingly, starting on line 354.

(3) There seem to be no replicas of the MD simulations, nor a discussion of the convergence of these simulations. A more detailed description of the equilibration and production schemes used in MD would be helpful. Moreover, there is no discussion of how the equilibration procedure is evaluated, in particular for non-experts this would be helpful in judging the reliability of the procedure.

We opted for a single, extended equilibrium simulation to comprehensively explore the longterm behavior of the system. Given the specific nature of our investigation and resource constraints, a well-converged, prolonged simulation was deemed a practical and scientifically valid approach, providing a thorough understanding of the system's dynamics. (doi: 10.33011/livecoms.1.1.5957, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-042910-155255 )

We updated our methods section starting on line 605 with extended information about the MD simulations and the converge criteria for the equilibrium simulations. We also added a section that explains our analysis to check statistical significance of obtained DFI values.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Ozkan SB. 2024. COV2SPIKE_MD. GitHub. 91b9d69
    2. Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, Goldsmith JA, Hsieh C, Abiona O, Graham BS, McLellan JS. 2020. Prefusion 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein with a single receptor-binding domain up. RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6VSB
    3. Wang X, Lan J, Ge J, Yu J, Shan S. 2020. Crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound with ACE2. RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6M0J [DOI] [PubMed]
    4. Walls AC, Park YJ, Tortorici MA, Wall A. 2020. Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (closed state) RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6VXX

    Supplementary Materials

    Figure 3—source data 1. A comparison of the amino acid sequences for different variant spike proteins used in this article.

    Sequence MN90894.3 is used as the wild-type (reference) sequence. For each different variant, residue positions matching the reference sequence are shown in blue, while locations where the residue differs from the reference sequence are shown in yellow. For S protein locations not shown here, all variants presented have the same amino acid type as the reference sequence.

    Supplementary file 1. DFI profile of the Omicron variant, as obtained from MD simulations.
    Supplementary file 2. DFI profile of the Omicron XBB variant, as obtained from MD simulations.
    Supplementary file 3. DFI profile of the Omicron XBB 1.5variant, as obtained from MD simulations.
    Supplementary file 4. Mutation sites and EP values.
    Supplementary file 5. The alignment used to generate EP values.
    elife-92063-supp5.zip (4.7KB, zip)
    Supplementary file 6. Alignment of VOC sequences.
    elife-92063-supp6.zip (1.3KB, zip)
    MDAR checklist

    Data Availability Statement

    The code to perform DFI and DCI analysis is available at https://github.com/SBOZKAN/DFI-DCI (copy archived at Ozkan, 2024). Molecular Dynamics data are available at https://github.com/SBOZKAN/COV2SPIKE_MD. The mutation sites and EP values are contained in Supplementary file 4. The alignment used to generate EP values is also contained within the supporting information files as "EP_alignment.fas". Protein Databank ID number 6VXX (Walls et al., 2020) was used for closed conformation DCI calculations. 6VSB (Wrapp et al., 2020) was used for DFI calculations, EpiScore calculations, and open conformation DCI calculations. 6M0J (Lan et al., 2020) was used in molecular dynamics simulations of the RBD.

    The following dataset was generated:

    Ozkan SB. 2024. COV2SPIKE_MD. GitHub. 91b9d69

    The following previously published datasets were used:

    Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, Goldsmith JA, Hsieh C, Abiona O, Graham BS, McLellan JS. 2020. Prefusion 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein with a single receptor-binding domain up. RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6VSB

    Wang X, Lan J, Ge J, Yu J, Shan S. 2020. Crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound with ACE2. RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6M0J

    Walls AC, Park YJ, Tortorici MA, Wall A. 2020. Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (closed state) RCSB Protein Data Bank. 6VXX


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES