Skip to main content
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Oct 23;139:104956. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104956

GRP78: A possible relationship of COVID-19 and the mucormycosis; in silico perspective

Alaa M Elgohary a, Abdo A Elfiky a,, Khaled Barakat b,∗∗
PMCID: PMC8536376  PMID: 34695683

Abstract

Mucormycosis is a severe fungal infection reported in many cancer survivors, diabetic and immune-suppressed patients during organ transplants. A vast spark in the reported COVID-19 cases is noticed in India during the second wave in May 2021, when Mucormycosis is declared an epidemic. Despite being a rare disease, the mortality rate associated with Mucormycosis is more than 40%. Spore coat proteins (CotH) are essential proteins in many pathogenic bacteria and fungi. CotH3 was reported as the vital protein required for fungal virulence in Mucormycosis. We previously reported the involvement of the host cell-surface receptor GRP78 in SARS-CoV-2 spike recognition. Additionally, GRP78 is known to be the virulence factor during Mucormycosis. Using state-of-the-art structural bioinformatics and molecular modeling tools, we predicted the GRP78 binding site to the Rhizopus delemar CotH3 protein. Our findings pave the way toward rationally designing small molecule inhibitors targeting the GRP78 and its counter proteins in both pathogenic viral (SARS-CoV-2 spike) and fungal (R. delemar CotH3) diseases.

Keywords: Mucormycosis, COVID-19, CotH3, Spike, GRP78, Protein-protein docking

1. Introduction

Mucormycosis, previously termed zygomycosis, is a severe but rare fungal disease caused by Mucorales order [1]. Rhizopus oryzae is the primary representative organism causing the illness, as observed in ∼70% of mucormycosis cases [2,3]. Mucormycosis is frequently reported after massive natural catastrophes such as tsunami and tornados [4]. Therefore, many patients can be at risk of mucormycosis including patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, in ketoacidosis, undergoing organ or bone marrow transplantation, treated with corticosteroids, have trauma and burns or have malignant hematologic disorder [5,6]. Mucormycosis is a fatal infection associated with a high mortality rate, particularly for patients suffering from diffused diseases [4,7]. As mucormycosis usually occurs in immunocompromised hosts, it has been reported recently as a secondary infection for SARS-CoV-2 patients [8], with a massive surge of mucormycosis characterizing the second wave of COVID-19 disease in India [[8], [9], [10]].

The 78-kDa cell-surface glucose-regulated protein CS-GRP78 (also known as BiP and HSPA5) plays a crucial role in the virulence of Rhizopus fungi, which causes mucormycosis infection. GRP78 is recognized by the fugal spore coat proteins (CotH - mainly the CotH3), which act as fungal ligands GRP78 [11]. It is also important to note that we have recently reported the importance of CS-GRP78 in recognizing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein [[12], [13], [14], [15]], where these findings were validated experimentally [16]. Moreover, GRP78 has been hypothesized to be responsible for the cross-vaccination reported for human coronaviruses [12,15]. The recognition of SARS-CoV-2 spike of the new variants alpha (UK variant VOC-202012/01), beta (South African 501.V2), and Gamma (Brazilian B.1.1.248) by cell-surface GRP78 is enhanced compared to the wildtype SARS-CoV-2 [17, 18].

Growing evidence is emerging to interconnect COVID-19 infection with mucormycosis [19]. ACE2 is the main entry gate for SRARS-CoV-2, but GRP78 recognizes the spike as an auxiliary route of infection, as proved experimentally lately by Carlos et al. [20]. Additionally, the GRP78 is involved in the translocation of ACE2 to the cell membrane. Therefore, mucormycosis susceptibility is increased in stressed cells, like the case in diabetes mellitus, cancer, and viral infection (such as COVID-19).

Here, we are using state-of-the-art computational bioinformatics tools to understand the link between these two deadly illnesses. Protein modeling followed by molecular dynamics simulation and protein-protein docking has been adopted for the fungal spore coat protein (CotH3). At the same time, its binding affinity and mode of binding against CS-GRP78 are predicted.

2. Materials and method

2.1. Sequence retrieval and alignment

Sequence for the fungal spore coat protein CotH3 (RO3G_11882) was retrieved from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) sequence database, while the Pep42 sequence was retrieved from the literature [[21], [22], [23]]. RO3G_11882 is the CotH3 protein sequence of Rhizopus delmar, one of the reported potential fungal agents that causes Mucormycosis in humans [24]. Also, the bacterial (Bacillus cereus) CotH and the Eukaryotic Protein Kinase (EPK) sequences were downloaded from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) database [25] (PDB ID: 5JD9 [26] and 1ATP [27], respectively). Sequence alignments were performed using the Clustal Omega multiple sequence alignment web server [28] of the European Molecular Biology Laboratories-European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI). ESPript 3.0 web server was used to visualize the alignment [29].

2.2. Structure prediction and the docking of AMP

The fungal CotH3 all atoms 3D model was built using the homology modeling SWISS-MODEL web server of The Center for Molecular Life Sciences, University of Basel [30]. We modeled the part of the CotH3 that is covered by the bacterial homolog (PDB ID: 5JDA). This model is missing 171 residues from the N-terminal and 133 residues from the C-terminal. This region of the CotH3 that we modeled has the whole CotH region of interest in our study (CotH kinase protein) as per the NCBI protein database definition of the protein regions of RO3G_11882. The generated model was validated using the SWISS-MODEL tools for validation and by the Structural Analysis and Verification Server (SAVES) of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) [31]. Three software were used from this server in model validation, including PROCHECK [32], ERRAT [33], and Verify-3D [34]. The active site amino acids for the fungal CotH3 are H135, R208, K266, Y280, and Q386 based on sequence and structural alignment against the bacterial CotH (PDB ID: 5JDA) [35].

In eukaryotes, the activity of the kinase is managed by nucleotide-binding such as Adenosine monophosphate (AMP) and the ATP: AMP ratio [36]. Nucleotide-binding is reported to be responsible for the kinase activity of human and bacterial kinases as well [35,37]. In this study, we docked AMP to the active site of the fugal CotH3 to test its binding activity against the host cell receptor GRP78. AutoDock Vina software was used to perform AMP docking against the CotH3 model, where we docked it to the protein active site [38]. A flexible ligand in a flexible active site docking protocol was adopted, where the formed complexes were ranked by their estimated Vina scoring function [38]. The docking search space used a grid box of size 60 Å × 90 Å × 50 Å, centered at (35.4, 60.5, 43.3) to cover the active site of CotH3. After that, two magnesium ions are added to the model using the coordinates of the bacterial CotH structure (PDB ID:5JDA) after superposition with the fungal CotH3 model.

2.3. Molecular dynamics simulation (MDS)

The fungal CotH3 with AMP and two Mg+2 system was solvated in a TIP3P water box at pH 7 [39]. The total charge of the system was maintained at zero by adding 41 sodium ions and 30 chlorine ions to mimic the physiological NaCl concentration of 0.154 mol/L. A total number of 10,901 water molecules in a box of size 70.47 Å × 78.27 Å × 70.92 Å were added, making a whole simulated system of 35,640 atoms. Water molecules in the system were then minimized for 10000 steps using a conjugate gradient algorithm [40]. The entire system (CotH3, AMP, Mg+2, and water) was then minimized using the same algorithm for another 10000 steps. After that, the constrained system (protein atoms fixed) was heated up to 310 K (physiological temperature), followed by an equilibration MDS run for 100 ps at NVT ensemble (constant number of atoms, volume, and temperature). Subsequently, an equilibration run (1 ns) for the whole system, without constraints, was performed. Finally, a production run of 120 ns was performed using the same conditions of the equilibration run for the fungal CotH3 system. Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) and Radius of Gyration (RoG) were plotted to show the equilibration of the system versus the simulation time. Hydrogen bonds (H-bond) formed between AMP and the protein were recorded during the 120 ns MDS run.

2.4. Protein-protein docking experiment

After the production run, the MD trajectories were clustered into groups of similar conformations using the Chimera software [41]. The clustering was performed for the trajectories after 60 ns (50% of the trajectories) of the MDS to ensure system equilibration. Ten different conformations representing ten clusters were used to test the binding affinity of the GRP78 (PDB ID: 5E84, Chain A) against the CotH3 model using HADDOCK software 2.4 [42]. Complexes of GRP78-CotH3 were then analyzed using the Protein-Ligand Interaction Profiler (PLIP) webserver to check the formed interactions then tabulated [43]. The PyMOL software was utilized to generate the 3D figures presented in this manuscript [44,45]. After that, a 50 ns MDS run was performed for the GRP78-CotH3 complex using the same protocol to check the dynamics of the formed complex.

3. Results and discussion

We are dealing with a life-and-death situation by combining a fatal fungus with a widely spread viral infection. This raises an important question as what could be the interconnection between the two diseases? We hypothesize that the stress chaperon protein (GRP78) and spore coating protein H3 (CotH3) provide this link for more than one piece of evidence, as we will see in the following sections. In the current study, we don't say that direct host-virus-fungus links persist; instead, the host cell protein GRP78 has the dual capability to work as an internalization gate for fungal and viral infection elements (CotH3 and Spike, respectively).

3.1. Multiple sequence and structural alignment

No structures are found in the protein data bank database for the fungal spore coating protein H; hence we have to predict the 3D structure computationally. But first, Do the available bacterial spore coat protein structures can help!. The structures for both eukaryotic protein kinase and bacterial CotH are available in the protein data bank. Sequence alignment of the eukaryotic protein kinase (PDB ID: 1ATP), the fungal CotH3 (RO3G_11882), and the bacterial CotH (PDB ID: 5JD9) reveals interesting results (see Fig. 1 ).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Multiple sequence alignment of eukaryotic protein kinase (EPK) (PDB: 1ATP), Fungal CotH3, and Bacterial CotH (PDB: 5JD9).

A number of features in fungal CotH3 resemble those in both the eukaryotic protein kinase (EPK) and prokaryotic kinases. For example, the Glycine-rich region and the APE motif characterize EPK in the fungal CotH3 but are absent in the bacterial CotH [46]. Furthermore, sequence identities between fungal CotH3 and EPK, & fungal CotH3 and bacterial CotH are 17.71% and 19.78%, respectively, while it is only 10.0% between the EPK and bacterial CotH. Based on this multiple sequence alignment, we propose that the fungal CotH3 can function as a kinase-like EPK and the bacterial CotH.

3.2. CotH3 model construction

Fungal CotH3 all atoms 3D model (296 amino acids) was constructed using the homology modeling web server SWISS-MODEL (7). The only suitable template with good coverage for the fungal spore coat protein was the Bacillus cereus CotH, despite its low sequence identity (19.93%). The best model constructed for fungal CotH3 was valid based on the results of the Ramachandran plot (98.5% in the preferred region, 1.5% in the allowed region with no outliers) (see Fig. 2 A), Verify-3D (82.15% of the residues had an averaged 3D-1D score greater than 0.2), and ERRAT (overall quality factor is 80.9%).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

A) The Ramachandran plot of the predicted model of CotH3 of Rhizopus delmar. B) The predicted average binding affinity of AMP to the fungal CotH3 (green) and the bacterial CotH (red) apo structure (PDB ID: 5JDA).

For CotH3 to be active as kinase AMP should be present in its position, we docked it using AutoDock Vina software. Fig. 2B shows the average binding energy of AMP to the fungal spore coat protein model (green column). AMP can bind to CotH3 with a binding affinity of (−7.6 to −8.6 kcal/mol). Besides, AMP is docked into the solved structure for the apo form of the bacterial CotH (PDB ID: 5JDA) with a predicted binding affinity of −7.9 kcal/mol (red column) the same range as that for the fungal spore coat protein.

Based on these results, we suggest that the fungal spore coat protein can tightly bind to AMP and may function like the bacterial CotH protein as a kinase, but yet to be validated experimentally.

3.3. Molecular dynamics simulation

The fungal CotH3 model was minimized and equilibrated with molecular dynamics simulation for a period of 120 ns. This experiment was conducted to be sure of the different conformations CotH3 will take during this time interval. As shown in Fig. 3 , the system was equilibrated after about 60 ns.as reflected from the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) values (Fig. 2A), where the RMSD (blue line) is stabilized at about 6.5 Å. Also, based on the radius of gyration (RoG) values (red line), the system is stable during the entire period of the MDS run, with the radius of gyration fluctuates between 20 and 22 Å.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

The MDS analysis of the CotH3-AMP system during 120 ns. (A) The Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) in blue and the Radius of Gyration (RoG) in red, versus the simulation time (in nanoseconds). (B) H-bond occupancy versus time in ns. (C) The per-residue Root Mean Square Fluctuations (RMSF). Protein conformation is represented in colored cartoon representation according to the coloring scheme on the up-right corner.

Hydrogen bonds formed between the AMP and CotH3 active site pocket amino acids were tracked during the entire period of the MDS run, as shown in Fig. 3B. The percent occupancy of the hydrogen bonds was calculated for every 5 ns. We focused on the H-bonds formed between AMP and G179, K181, N184, N368 & D387. As shown in Fig. 3B, the percent occupancy of the AMP-K181 H-bond was maintained during the entire MDS)ranged from 100 to 200% (. Both AMP-N368 and AMP-D387 H-bonds show 50–100% occupancies during the first 100 ns of the MDS. After that, it was dropped and was compensated by AMP-G179 and AMP-N184 H-bonds. So, the AMP was tightly interacting with the CotH3 by at least 3 H-bonds during the simulation time. This supported the docking study and proved the ability of AMP to be settled in the active site pocket of CotH3.

Fig. 3C shows the per-residue Root Mean Square Fluctuations (RMSF) for the CotH3 system during the simulation time. After the simulation, the 3D structure of the CotH3 model is represented at the top of the figure with colored cartoons. In addition to the protein termini, six regions show high flexibility characterized by RMSF values greater than 3 Å, including the S194-G200 (blue), I243–F248 (cyan), G282-S284 (magenta), G293-A312 (red), L396-N402 (orange), and R415-G418 (gray) regions. The defined kinase activity residues R208, E219, Y281, D360, T367, and D387 for CotH3 (shown on the RMSF curve by location marks) are found to be rigid during the simulation period. The orange region (L396-N402) is suggested to bear the GRP78 binding motif based on the sequence similarity with the peptide Pep42 that was previously reported to selectively bind to GRP78 over cancer cells [22,23,47,48]. Noticeably, the GRP78 recognition site on the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (C480–C488) exhibits a similar pattern of elevated RMSF. Additionally, the new strain spikes of SARS-CoV-2 (alpha, beta, and gamma strains) show higher RMSF values for the C480–C488 region than the WT spike. A correlation between the elevated RMSF of this region and the predicted spike recognition by GRP78 is reported as well [17,18]. So, we suggest the CotH3 L396-N402 region to be the recognition element for CS-GRP78 on epithelial cells. Now we will check for the GRP78-CotH3 binding at the predicted sites using the protein-protein docking protocol.

3.4. The predicted CotH3 binding site to human GRP78

As reported earlier, the fungal CotH1, CotH2, and CotH3 form direct contact with the human receptor GRP78 found on the cell membrane of the endothelial cells with priority for the binding were for CotH3 [11]. Therefore, we utilized HADDOCK 2.4 webserver to simulate the binding of the major virulence factor for Mucormycosis (CotH3) to the host cell-surface GRP78. The ten representative conformations of the CotH3 after the MDS run were docked to the GRP78 structure. HADDOCK 2.4 utilizes solvated docking to simulate protein-protein interaction using combined information sources such as bioinformatics, NMR, and mass spectrometry to drive the docking. In addition, it includes the depreciation of the protein-protein interface using molecular dynamics [42]. Fig. 4 A shows the average docking scores (HADDOCK scores) for the docking of GRP78 substrate-binding domain β (SBD) to the CotH3 (L396-N402 region) (red column). Additionally, the average docking scores for the wildtype (WT), alpha, and beta & gamma variants of the SARS-CoV-2 spike against GRP78 SBD are shown for comparison (blue, cyan, and purple columns, respectively).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

(A) The binding affinity of the CotH3 (blue column) and Spikes of SARS-CoV-2 (blue, cyan, and purple columns) against GRP78 calculated using HADDOCK software. (B) The docked complexes are superimposed on each other (left-hand side), and one of the formed complexes (right-hand side) shown in cartoon representation (top) and surface presentation (below) with 90° rotation on the x-axis. C) The formed interactions in (B) represented by PyMOL after the PLIP webserver run. The different interactions are depicted as per legend at the bottom of the figure.

The average HADDOCK score for the CotH3 against GRP78 (−76.48 ± 8.0) is in the same range as the different variants of the spike against GRP78 (−85.8 ± 9.8). The formed interactions upon docking the CotH3 against GRP78 are listed in Table 1 . The main types of interactions that stabilize the complexes are the formation of H-bonds (8 ± 2.5) and the hydrophobic interactions (5.7 ± 1.8). Additionally, salt bridges are formed in some complexes (1.1 ± 0.9). The residues from the GRP78 that engaged in the interaction with CotH3, ranked by the number of formed interactions, are V429 (15), S452 (15 H-bonds), R488 (11), V453 (8), T428 (7), T452 (7 H-bonds), V490 (7), T428 (6), T434 (6 H-bonds), K460 (6), Q449 (5 H-bonds), and Q492 (5).

Table 1.

The interactions formed between the CotH3 of R. delemar and cell-surface GRP78 SBDβ upon docking with HADDOCK.

CotH3 conformation HADDOCK score H-bonding
Hydrophobic interaction
Salt bridges
number Residues from the CotH3 Residues from GRP78 number Residues from the CotH3 Residues from GRP78 number Residues from the CotH3 Residues from GRP78
1 −66.1
±4.9
7 E400
D406
N402
P399
E400
P465
N461
E427
V429
S452
T458
K460
G489
Q492
3 D406
L457
L464
V432
I450
V490
1 D466 R488
2 −82.5
±3.7
5 Q246
N245
N395
E400
D411
D350
D350
S452
T458
G489
4 A397
N402
P399
E400
T428
V429
I459
K460
1 E400 K460
3 −73.1
±10.6
7 N245
P399
E468
A397
D406
E400
K410
D350
V429
K453
S452
S452
T458
R488
5 L464
L396
E400
A398
E468
V432
I450
V453
V453
P467
2 E468
D411
K435
R488
4 −73.2
±8.7
5 E400
H460
D406
A398
N402
Q449
Q449
R488
Q492
Q492
8 N461
A458
E400
A398
L457
T453
L405
L405
T428
V429
I450
I450
F451
V490
V490
Q492
3 E468
E400
D411
K435
K447
R488
5 −91.1
±5.5
9 D406
N402
E400
E400
E400
E400
Q216
A185
G247
G431
T434
T434
S448
Q449
Q449
S452
R488
G513
9 A398
A398
N395
A397
L405
A398
L396
F248
E211
I426
T428
V429
V429
V432
F451
V453
R488
V490
1 E400 K447
6 −70.4
±8.9
11 N402
N402
D406
N402
E400
E400
E400
F242
R240
R240
L464
T428
V429
G431
T434
S452
S452
V453
R488
V490
V490
Q492
5 A397
D406
P465
E400
F242
V429
V432
I450
F451
R488
7 −78.2
±9.6
8 N402
N402
G401
E400
E400
E400
P214
K186
T428
V429
T434
T434
T434
Q449
S452
V490
4 D406
T453
A398
A185
V429
V432
F451
R488
1 E400 K447
8 −67.0
±5.8
6 A398
N395
N395
V394
N395
D411
V429
S452
S452
S452
V453
G454
6 L396
L396
L405
A397
A398
Y416
I426
T428
V429
V429
V432
P487
9 −87.9
±11.2
9 H460
H460
L396
V394
D406
E400
E400
K410
D411
E427
G430
S452
S452
G454
T458
T458
A486
G489
7 P399
A397
L396
L396
A403
A398
P399
E427
V429
F451
F451
V453
V457
K460
2 E400
D411
K460
R488
10 −75.3
±7.1
13 N244
L396
N395
E400
E400
E400
N461
N461
H460
H460
N244
Q246
N244
K123
G430
G430
S452
S452
V453
G454
T456
T458
T458
E532
E532
R536
6 F248
A398
E400
E400
Q246
N245
K123
V429
F451
V453
T530
E532

Fig. 4B shows the docking complexes formed after docking the GRP78 structure (green cartoons) against the ten different cluster representatives of CotH3 (cyan cartoons). The region F392–V407 of the CotH3 (GRP78 binding region) is shown in the red cartoon. This region is surface accessible and has high hydrophobicity index of 0.663 (Kyte & Doolittle) [49]. This agrees with previous reports that GRP78 can catch unfolded hydrophobic patches on misfolded proteins and viral proteins [12,[50], [51], [52]].

The left-hand side of the figure shows the superposition of the ten complexes, while the right-hand side shows the complex formed between GRP78 and the CotH3 conformation at 82 ns. The surface representation at the bottom view of Fig. 4B shows the binding region of the CotH3 docked into the GRP78 substrate-binding domain β. The PLIP webserver was utilized to analyze the docking complexes (Table 1 and Fig. 4C).

H-bonds (blue lines) are the primary formed interaction types, followed by the hydrophobic interactions (dashed-gray lines) and few salt bridges (dashed-yellow lines with two yellow balls).

We perform 50 ns MDS run on one of the formed complexes (GRP78-CotH3) utilizing the same protocol. Fig. 5 A shows the RMSD in Å (blue line), RoG in Å (orange line), and SASA in Å2 (gray line) for the GRP78-CotH3 complex versus the simulation time in ns. As reflected from the RMSD curve, the system was equilibrated during the first ten ns of the simulation with an equilibrium RMSD value of 8 Å. The RoG and SASA of the GRP78-CotH3 complex indicate system stability during the simulation, with average values of 43 Å and 47000 Å2 for RoG and SASA, respectively. In addition, the total number of H-bonds in the system was stable around 1470, which also indicates system stability. The per-residue RMSF of the GRP78-CotH3 system (red line) was plotted in Fig. 5B along with GRP78 alone (green line) and CotH3 alone (blue line) [53]. The interacting regions in both proteins that we predicted are enlarged for clarification. Overall the RMSF of the GRP78-CotH3 complex (red) is slightly higher than the single protein RMSFs (green and blue). Noticeably, the predicted binding site of the CotH3 to GRP78 (L396-N402) has lower RMSF (red line) compared to the CotH3 RMSF (blue line) as clarified in the top-right enlarged panel. This reflects the stabilization exerted on this loop (orange loop in Fig. 3C) upon binding to GRP78. For GRP78, the RMSF of the complex is close to the free protein as shown from the left-enlarged panel in Fig. 5B.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Molecular Dynamics Simulation (50 ns) of the GRP78-CotH3 complex after docking. (A) The Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) in blue, the Radius of Gyration (RoG) in orange, and the Surface Accessible Surface Area (SASA) in gray, versus the simulation time in nanoseconds. (B) The per-residue Root Mean Square Fluctuations (RMSF) of the GRP78-CotH3 complex (red), GRP78 (green) and CotH3 (blue). The interacting regions in both protein are enlarged for clarification.

In summary, our results don't contradict the ACE2 role in viral (SARS-CoV-2 spike) recognition and entry. Instead, GRP78 over the stressed cells has been proven to be an auxiliary entry element for SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the membrane expression of ACE2 is elevated only in the presence of GRP78, so its role involves the translocation of ACE2 to the plasma membrane [20]. GRP78 is a stress response inside the cell, so the viral infection will elevate the level of GRP78 expression that translocate more ACE2 and CS-GRP78 to the membrane of the host-cell, increasing the susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 spike and fungal CotH3 recognition and infection propagation.

4. Conclusion

Fungal CotH3 is an essential factor for Mucormycosis virulence. In this study, we reported for the first time the kinase activity of CotH3. Besides, we predicted the binding site on CotH3 against the human cell-surface GRP78 protein that is overexpressed on the membrane of endothelial cells upon cellular stress. CS-GRP78 is one of the routes for SARS-CoV-2 recognition and entry, in addition to its master role in recognizing CotH3 and the internalization of the Rhizopus fungal species. Therefore, inhibition of the CotH3-GRP78 binding is a key for suppressing the virulence of Mucormycosis. At the same time, anti–CS–GRP78 may be suitable to reduce the virulence of Mucormycosis-COVID-19 coinfection.

Funding

This paper is partly based upon work supported by Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) under grant number: 44575.

Declaration of competing interest

All the authors declare that there is no competing interest in this work.

Acknowledgment

We want to acknowledge the help of Prof. Dr. Asharaf Ibrahim and Dr. Marawan Ahmed for the helpful discussion and suggestions.

References

  • 1.Hibbett D.S., Binder M., Bischoff J.F., et al. A higher-level phylogenetic classification of the Fungi. Mycol. Res. 2007;111(Pt 5):509–547. doi: 10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ribes J.A., Vanover-Sams C.L., Baker D.J. Zygomycetes in human disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2000;13(2):236–301. doi: 10.1128/cmr.13.2.236-301.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shumilov E., Bacher U., Perske C., et al. In situ validation of the endothelial cell receptor GRP78 in a case of rhinocerebral mucormycosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2018;62(5) doi: 10.1128/AAC.00172-18. e00172-118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sugar A.M. Mucormycosis. Clin. Infect Dis. 1992;14(Suppl 1):S126–S129. doi: 10.1093/clinids/14.supplement_1.s126. Supplement_1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sugar A.M. In: Atlas of Infectious Diseases: Fungal Infections. Mandell G.L., Diamond R.D., editors. Current Medicine Group; London: 2000. Mucormycosis and entomophthoromycosis; pp. 161–169. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Spellberg B., Edwards J., Jr., Ibrahim A. Novel perspectives on mucormycosis: pathophysiology, presentation, and management. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2005;18(3):556–569. doi: 10.1128/CMR.18.3.556-569.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Elfiky A.A. The antiviral Sofosbuvir against mucormycosis: an in silico perspective. Future Virol. 2019;14(11):739–744. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Werthman-Ehrenreich A. Mucormycosis with orbital compartment syndrome in a patient with COVID-19. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021;42:264 e265–264 e268. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chakravorty I. Key factors fuelling India's second COVID surge. Physician. 2021;7(1):1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vaidyanathan G. Coronavirus variants are spreading in India—what scientists know so far. Nature. 2021:332. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-01274-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gebremariam T., Liu M., Luo G., et al. CotH3 mediates fungal invasion of host cells during mucormycosis. J. Clin. Invest. 2014;124(1):237–250. doi: 10.1172/JCI71349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Elfiky A.A., Ibrahim I.M., Ismail A.M., et al. A possible role for GRP78 in cross vaccination against COVID-19. J. Infect. 2021;82(2):282–327. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.09.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ibrahim I.M., Abdelmalek D.H., Elshahat M.E., et al. COVID-19 spike-host cell receptor GRP78 binding site prediction. J. Infect. 2020;80(5):554–562. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.02.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Elfiky A.A., Ibrahim I.M., Amin F.G., et al. COVID-19 and cell stress. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2021;1318:169–178. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-63761-3_10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Elfiky A.A. SARS-CoV-2 spike-heat shock protein A5 (GRP78) recognition may be related to the immersed human coronaviruses. Front. Pharmacol. 2020;11:577467. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.577467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Carlos A.J., Ha D.P., Yeh D.-W., et al. American academy of pediatrics. Committee on environmental hazards. PCBs in breast milk. Pediatrics. 1978;62(3):407. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ibrahim I.M., Elfiky A.A., Elgohary A.M. Recognition through GRP78 is enhanced in the UK, South African, and Brazilian variants of SARS-CoV-2; an in silico perspective. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2021;562:89–93. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.05.058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Elfiky A.A., Ibrahim I.M. Host-cell recognition through GRP78 is enhanced in the new UK variant of SARS-CoV-2, in silico. J. Infect. 2021;82(5):186–230. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.01.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chandra S., Rawal R. The surge in Covid related mucormycosis. J. Infect. 2021;83(3):381–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.06.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Carlos A.J., Ha D.P., Yeh D.-W., et al. The chaperone GRP78 is a host auxiliary factor for SARS-CoV-2 and GRP78 depleting antibody blocks viral entry and infection. J. Biol. Chem. 2021:296. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.NCBI. National Center of Biotechnology informatics (NCBI) database website. 2017. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Availablehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
  • 22.Elfiky A.A., Baghdady A.M., Ali S.A., et al. GRP78 targeting: hitting two birds with a stone. Life Sci. 2020;260:118317. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.118317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ibrahim I.M., Abdelmalek D.H., Elfiky A.A. GRP78: a cell's response to stress. Life Sci. 2019;226:156–163. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.04.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Abe A., Oda Y., Asano K., et al. Rhizopus delemar is the proper name for Rhizopus oryzae fumaric-malic acid producers. Mycologia. 2007;99(5):714–722. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.99.5.714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Berman H., Henrick K., Nakamura H. Announcing the worldwide protein data bank. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2003;10(12) doi: 10.1038/nsb1203-980. 980-980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nguyen K.B., Sreelatha A., Durrant E.S., et al. Phosphorylation of spore coat proteins by a family of atypical protein kinases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 2016;113(25):E3482–E3491. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605917113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zheng J., Trafny E.A., Knighton D.R., et al. 2.2 Å refined crystal structure of the catalytic subunit of cAMP-dependent protein kinase complexed with MnATP and a peptide inhibitor. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr. 1993;49(3):362–365. doi: 10.1107/S0907444993000423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sievers F., Wilm A., Dineen D., et al. Fast, scalable generation of high‐quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2011;7(1):539. doi: 10.1038/msb.2011.75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Robert X., Gouet P. Deciphering key features in protein structures with the new ENDscript server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:W320–W324. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku316. Web Server issue. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Biasini M., Bienert S., Waterhouse A., et al. SWISS-MODEL: modelling protein tertiary and quaternary structure using evolutionary information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:W252–W258. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku340. Web Server issue. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Structural Analysis and Verification Server Website. http://nihserver.mbi.ucla.edu/SAVES/. 2017
  • 32.Laskowski R.A., Rullmann J.A.C., MacArthur M.W., et al. AQUA and PROCHECK-NMR: programs for checking the quality of protein structures solved by NMR. J. Biomol. NMR. 1996;8(4):477–486. doi: 10.1007/BF00228148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hooft R.W., Vriend G., Sander C., et al. Errors in protein structures. Nature. 1996;381(6580):272. doi: 10.1038/381272a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Eisenberg D., Lüthy R., Bowie J.U. Methods in Enzymology. Elsevier; 1997. VERIFY3D: assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles; pp. 396–404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nguyen K.B., Sreelatha A., Durrant E.S., et al. Phosphorylation of spore coat proteins by a family of atypical protein kinases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 2016;113(25):E3482–E3491. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605917113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hardie D.G., Hawley S.A. AMP-activated protein kinase: the energy charge hypothesis revisited. Bioessays. 2001;23(12):1112–1119. doi: 10.1002/bies.10009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Grahame Hardie D. AMP-activated protein kinase: a key regulator of energy balance with many roles in human disease. J. Intern. Med. 2014;276(6):543–559. doi: 10.1111/joim.12268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Trott O., Olson A.J. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 2010;31(2):455–461. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.van Dijk A.D., Bonvin A.M. Solvated docking: introducing water into the modelling of biomolecular complexes. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(19):2340–2347. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Leach A. second ed. Prentice Hall; 2001. Molecular Modelling: Principles and Applications. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pettersen E.F., Goddard T.D., Huang C.C., et al. UCSF Chimera—a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 2004;25(13):1605–1612. doi: 10.1002/jcc.20084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.van Zundert G.C.P., Rodrigues J., Trellet M., et al. The HADDOCK2.2 web server: user-friendly integrative modeling of biomolecular complexes. J. Mol. Biol. 2016;428(4):720–725. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Salentin S., Schreiber S., Haupt V.J., et al. PLIP: fully automated protein–ligand interaction profiler. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(W1):W443–W447. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rauf M.A., Zubair S., Azhar A. Ligand docking and binding site analysis with pymol and autodock/vina. Int. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2015;4(2):168. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.2.4.1 V. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 2.4.1 Schrödinger, LLC.
  • 46.Nguyen K.B., Sreelatha A., Durrant E.S., et al. Phosphorylation of spore coat proteins by a family of atypical protein kinases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016;113(25):E3482–E3491. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605917113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Luo S., Mao C., Lee B., et al. GRP78/BiP is required for cell proliferation and protecting the inner cell mass from apoptosis during early mouse embryonic development. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006;26(15):5688–5697. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00779-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kim Y., Lillo A.M., Steiniger S.C., et al. Targeting heat shock proteins on cancer cells: selection, characterization, and cell-penetrating properties of a peptidic GRP78 ligand. Biochemistry. 2006;45(31):9434–9444. doi: 10.1021/bi060264j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kyte J., Doolittle R.F. A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. J. Mol. Biol. 1982;157(1):105–132. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(82)90515-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Elfiky A.A. Human papillomavirus E6: host cell receptor, GRP78, binding site prediction. J. Med. Virol. 2020;92(12):3759–3765. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Elfiky A.A., Ibrahim I.M. Zika virus envelope–heat shock protein A5 (GRP78) binding site prediction. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2021;39(14):5248–5260. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1784794. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gonzalez–Gronow M., Selim M.A., Papalas J., et al. GRP78: a multifunctional receptor on the cell surface. Antioxidants Redox Signal. 2009;11(9):2299–2306. doi: 10.1089/ARS.2009.2568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Elfiky A.A. Natural products may interfere with SARS-CoV-2 attachment to the host cell. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2021;39(9):3194–3203. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1761881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Computers in Biology and Medicine are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES