| Literature DB >> 33619446 |
Abstract
Enterotoxigenic E.coli is causing diarrheal illness in children as well as adults with the majority of the cases occurring in developing countries. To reduce the number of cases occurring worldwide, the development of an effectual vaccine against these bacteria can be the only prevention. This conjectural work was performed using modern bioinformatics tools for investigation of proteome of ETEC strain E24377A. Different computational vaccinology approaches were deployed to assess several parameters including antigenicity, allergenicity, stability, localization, molecular weight and toxicity of the predicted epitopes required for good vaccine candidate to elicit immune response against diarrhea. We estimated two known control antigens, epitope 141STLPETTVV149 of Hepatitis B virus and epitope 265ILRGSVAHK273 of H1N1 Nucleoprotein in an attempt to corroborate our research work. Furthermore molecular docking was performed to evaluate the interaction between HLA allele and peptide, the peptide QYGGGNSAL and peptide LPYFELRWL were considered to be the most promiscuous T cell epitopes with the highest binding energy value of -2.09 kcal/mol and -1.84 kcal/mol, respectively. In addition, dynamic simulation revealed good stability of the vaccine construct as well as population coverage analysis exhibits the highest population coverage in the regions of East Asia, India, Northeast Asia, South Asia and North America. Therefore, these two epitopes can be further synthesized for wet lab analysis and could be considered as a promising vaccine against diarrhea. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13721-021-00287-6.Entities:
Keywords: Docking; Epitope; Immunoinformatics; Vaccine
Year: 2021 PMID: 33619446 PMCID: PMC7890383 DOI: 10.1007/s13721-021-00287-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Netw Model Anal Health Inform Bioinform ISSN: 2192-6670
Fig. 1Flowchart to represent the methodology used in the analysis for T cell epitope designing
Allergen prediction, adhesion probability and vaxiJen prediction of selected proteins to find out the best epitopes with good scores
| S.no | Uniprot Id | Protein | AllergenFP prediction | Adhesin(probability) | VaxiJen prediction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A7ZKX4 | Putative outer membrane autotransporter | Non -Allergen | 0.682 | 0.8216 |
| 2 | A7ZU80 | Oligogalacturonatespecific porin protein | Non -Allergen | 0.581 | 0.8345 |
| 3 | A7ZJC8 | Uncharacterized protein | Non -Allergen | 0.545 | 1.1646 |
| 4 | A7ZK46 | Fimbrial protein | Non -Allergen | 0.599 | 0.9987 |
| 5 | A7ZHN2 | Fimbrial protein | Non -Allergen | 0.689 | 0.8400 |
| 6 | A7ZKR1 | Putative phage tail domain protein | Non -Allergen | 0.702 | 0.8577 |
| 7 | A7ZVJ1 | Antigen 43 | Non -Allergen | 0.718 | 0.8807 |
| 8 | A7ZRC0 | Antigen 43 | Non -Allergen | 0.713 | 0.8658 |
| 9 | A7ZKE5 | Major curlin protein CsgA | Non -Allergen | 0.713 | 1.3095 |
Cytotoxic T cell epitopes binding with different MHC class I HLA alleles by NetCTL 1.2 tool
| (a) Binding of epitopes with A supertypes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniprot Id | A1 supertype | A2 supertype | A3 supertype | A24 supertype | A26 supertype |
| A7ZKX4 | TTDGSTG VY (202: 3.6227) | AMNNSVWNV (480: 1.4176) | RLSDVMPLY (734: 1.6370) | NYLNVGYLL (668: 1.8324) | TTADAGGNY (661:2.2210) |
| A7ZU80 | WLDRNVEPY(207:2.6424) | FVPWFNLTV (114:1.2937) | RINEHWLPY (194: 1.6676) | VYLDVNYKF (106: 2.0443) | EIEGWYPLF (73: 1.4596) |
| A7ZJC8 | MTKLATLFL (3: 0.8453) | KLATLFLTA (5: 1.1647) | SMNNDGMTK (78: 1.4199) | LFLTATLSL (9: 1.0996) | – |
| A7ZK46 | NTLKYQLRY (149:2.8381) | ILFFSILNI (11:1.2648) | TLKYQLRYK (150:1.2712) | IFQCVILFF(6:1.7285) | NTLKYQLRY (149:1.5472) |
| A7ZHN2 | DATTKSAVY (155:0.9496) | AMVAGTASA (15:1.1206) | VLNDTVGAK (68: 1.1170) | VYDFKASYV (162:0.8954) | AVYDFKASY (161:1.7411) |
| A7ZKR1 | WTDRGRYAY(595:3.4422) | YVDGAAFPV (633: 1.2950) | SSASTATTK (332: 1.3553) | SYRSYYQRI (1061: 1.7247) | DTYILVNFY (847: 2.0818) |
| A7ZVJ1 | MTISTGLEY (83: 3.0722) | KTWLAFTNV (546: 1.0965) | VLEGHSAWK (351: 1.4060) | SYRLVWNHI (8: 1.7014) | ATPESSGSY (674: 2.0319) |
| A7ZRC0 | MTISTGLEY (83: 3.0722) | SLGGYLNLV (733: 1.2681) | VLEGHSAWK (351: 1.4060) | SYRLVWNHI (8: 1.7014) | ATPESSGSY (674: 2.0319) |
| A7ZKE5 | NSELNIYQY (42: 2.7269) | KVAAIAAIV (5: 0.9260) | ALAGVVPQY (18: 1.2059) | VAAIAAIVF (6: 0.7849) | ALAGVVPQY (18: 1.4166) |
Prediction of toxicity, number of transmembrane regions and molecular weight of the potential peptide to calculate the tendency of peptides as vaccine candidates
| Peptide | Toxicity Score | Toxicity prediction | Number of predicted transmembrane regions | Molecular weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LPYFELRWL | − 1.17 | Non-Toxin | 0 | 1236.61 |
| CVILFFSIL | − 0.75 | Non-Toxin | 0 | 1054.49 |
| QYGGGNSAL | − 0.52 | Non-Toxin | 0 | 866.03 |
| SSASTATTK | − 0.89 | Non-Toxin | 0 | 853 |
| STLPETTVV( +) | − 1.26 | Non-Toxin | 0 | 946.19 |
| ILRGSVAHK( +) | − 1.12 | Non-Toxin | 0 | 980.31 |
Homology modeling of HLA I alleles binding to the selected epitopes using Modeller tool
| S. no | HLA Allele | Chain | Template (PDB database ID) | DOPE Score | Crystal Structure / model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HLA-A*1101 | B | 1Q94 | − 29,084.093 | Model |
| 2 | HLA-B*1502 | A | 1XR8 | − 29,724.101 | Model |
Binding energy calculation of the best identified epitopes interacting with HLA alleles using Autodock 4.2
| Peptide | HLA allele | Binding Energy (kcal/mol) | IntermolecularEnergy (kcal/mol) | Internal Energy (kcal/mol) | Torsiona l Energy (kcal/mo) | Vander wal energy (kcal/ml) | Electro static energy (kcal/mol) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QYGGGNSAL | A*1101 | − 2.09 | − 8.82 | − 6.15 | 8.05 | − 7.48 | − 1.34 |
| QYGGGN SAL | B*1502 | − 1.74 | − 9.79 | + 0.00 | 8.05 | − 8.13 | − 1.66 |
| LPYFELRWL | A*1101 | − 0.15 | − 10.59 | + 0.00 | 10.44 | − 10.53 | − 0.06 |
| LPYFELRWL | B*1502 | − 1.84 | − 12.28 | − 8.21 | 10.44 | − 11.53 | − 0.75 |
| CVILFFSIL | B*1502 | − 1.30 | − 10.85 | − 4.68 | 9.55 | − 10.83 | − 0.02 |
| CVILFFSIL | A*1101 | − 1.07 | − 10.62 | + 0.00 | 9.55 | − 10.36 | − 0.26 |
Here in this table the binding ability of peptide with the corresponding alleles will indicate the most complex docked structure for stability check in vaccine development
Fig. 2Docked complex of QYGGGNSAL with HLA class I allele A*11:01 visualized through Chimera 1.12
Fig. 3Docked complex of LPYFELRWL with HLA class I allele B*15:02 visualized through Chimera 1.12
Fig. 4RMSd analysis for LPYFELRWL corresponding to HLA-B*15:02
Fig. 5RMSd analysis for QYGGGNSAL corresponding to HLA-A*11:01
Fig. 6Population coverage analysis of T cell epitope QYGGGNSAL
Fig. 7Population coverage data of T cell epitope LPYFELRWL