Bioinformatics-based prediction of conformational epitopes for human parechovirus.

Human parechoviruses (HPeVs) are human pathogens that usually cause diseases ranging from rash to neonatal sepsis in young children. HPeV1 and HPeV3 are the most frequently reported genotypes and their three-dimensional structures have been determined. However, there is a lack of systematic research on the antigenic epitopes of HPeVs, which are useful for understanding virus-receptor interactions, developing antiviral agents or molecular diagnostic tools, and monitoring antigenic evolution. Thus, we systematically predicted and compared the conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 using bioinformatics methods in the study. The results showed that both epitopes clustered into three sites (sites 1, 2 and 3). Site 1 was located on the "northern rim" near the fivefold vertex; site 2 was on the "puff"; and site 3 was divided into two parts, of which one was located on the "knob" and the other was close to the threefold vertex. The predicted epitopes highly overlapped with the reported antigenic epitopes, which indicated that the prediction results were accurate. Although the distribution positions of the epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 were highly consistent, the residues varied largely and determined the genotypes. Three amino acid residues, VP3-91N, -92H and VP0-257S, were the key residues for monoclonal antibody (mAb) AM28 binding to HPeV1 and were also of great significance in distinguishing HPeV1 and HPeV3. We also found that two residues, VP1-85N and -87D, might affect the capability of mAb AT12-015 to bind to HPeV3.

Introduction

Human parechoviruses (HPeVs) belong to the species Parechovirus type-A of the Picornaviridae family. To date, 19 different HPeV genotypes (HPeV1-19) have been identified and HPeV1 and HPeV3 are the most prevalent types [1]. The extremely high seroprevalence of HPeV1 and HPeV3 (about 45–100%) indicates that HPeV1 and HPeV3 infections are common in young children. Although HPeVs infections usually cause mild diseases, including gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases, rash, enteritis and diarrhea [2, 3], more than 60% of HPeV3-infected patients who were hospitalized had severe central nervous system diseases, including neonatal sepsis and meningitis [4-6]. There are no antivirals or vaccines available to combat HPeV infection except a few monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) may had the therapeutic potential [7, 8].

HPeV is a nonenveloped virus with an icosahedral symmetrical spherical structure and contains an ~7.3 kb single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome [9]. The polyprotein encoded by the HPeV genome is cleaved into three viral proteins (VPs) including VP1, VP0 and VP3 and seven nonstructural proteins (2A-C and 3A-D) [7]. In contrast to most picornaviruses such as foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) and poliovirus I (PV1), HPeVs lack the maturation cleavage of VP0 into VP4 and VP2. The VPs reside in the HPeV capsid and assemble an asymmetric unit. Sixty units form the virus capsid [7]. The three-dimensional (3D) structures of HPeV1 [10] and HPeV3 [7, 9] have been determined at atomic resolution. Like other picornaviruses, the core secondary structures of HPeVs are made up of eight antiparallel β-sheets (βB-βI), which are further folded into β-barrels. There is a "canyon" on the surface of the virus capsid, and the "northern rim" of the canyon is predominantly formed by the VP1 BC and HI loops (Fig 1). The "southern rim" is formed by the "puff" and the "knob". The former consists of the VP0 EF loop and VP1 GH loop, and the latter is a short loop preceding the VP3 βB [11]. The surfaces of the HPeV virions are relatively flatter and shallower than that of FMDV and PV1 because the northern and southern rims of the canyon are less protruding in HPeVs [10].

Fig 1

The capsid structures of HPeV1 and HPeV3.

(A-B) Radius-colored surface representation of HPeV1 (A) and HPeV3 (B). The surfaces are colored blue to red, according to the distance from the particle center (red representing the furthest distance). The multiple chains, consisting of four subunits and labeled chains 1–4, are outlined in black. (C-D) Magnified views of the multiple chains and the capsid characteristics of HPeV1 (C) and HPeV3 (D) are shown. Chain 1 is indicated by a black triangle. (E-F) The predicted conformational epitopes of chain 1 of HPeV1 (E) and HPeV3 (F). Chain 1 is also indicated by a black triangle, with subunits VP1, VP0 and VP3 in light pink, light blue and light orange, respectively. Residues involved in conformational epitope sites 1, 2 and 3 of chain 1 are shown in red, green and blue, respectively. The positions of the icosahedral symmetry axes are indicated by pentagons (5-fold), triangles (3-fold), and ovals (2-fold).

Antigenic epitopes are useful for understanding virus-receptor interactions and finding potential cures for antiviral agents or molecular diagnostic tools [7, 8]. In addition, the determination of epitopes is of great significance to monitor the antigenic evolution of viruses [12-16]. Domanska et al. [7] discovered a human neutralizing mAb AT12-015 that specifically bound to HPeV3’s flat region between the northern rim and knob and blocked attachment of virions to host cells. As for another genotype HPeV1, Shakeel [8] found that mAb AM28 could bind to the conformational epitope near the threefold vertex of HPeV1, which might inhibit HPeV1 uncoating by stabilizing the capsid. MAb AM18 could bind to the linear epitope of RGD motif in HPeV1 VP1 C-terminus, which blocked the binding of the integrin receptor [8]. There is, however, a lack of systematic research on the epitopes especially for conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3, since the determination of the conformational epitopes requires complex techniques such as cryo-electron microscopy.

Previously, we developed a bioinformatics algorithm for human enterovirus based on Borley et al.’s multiple chains algorithm. The algorithm had successfully predicted the conformational epitopes for coxsackievirus A10 (CVA10) and found that the epitopes clustered into three sites [17]. In this study, we systematically predicted the conformational epitopes for HPeV1 and HPeV3 using similar method and compared them to discover the key residues for mAbs’ binding.

Materials and methods

Sequence and structure analysis

The 3D structures of HPeV1 (Harris strain) [10] and HPeV3 (A308/99 strain) [7] with the respective PDB IDs of 4Z92 and 6GV4, whose resolutions were 3.10 Å and 2.80 Å, respectively, were downloaded from the RCSB PDB database [18]. The corresponding GenBank IDs of the amino acid sequences of HPeV1 and HPeV3, which were retrieved from the NCBI Nucleotide database, are L02971 and AB084913, respectively [19]. In addition, the complete genome sequences of HPeV1-19 strains were downloaded from the NCBI Nucleotide database to analyze the sequence conservation and the amino acid sequences of VPs were deduced. The strains used were as follows: HPeV1 (57 strains), HPeV2 (3 strains), HPeV3 (130 strains), HPeV4 (12 strains), HPeV5 (9 strains), HPeV6 (7 strains), HPeV7 (1 strain), HPeV8 (3 strains), HPeV14 (5 strains), HPeV17 (6 strains), HPeV18 (1 strain), and HPeV19 (1 strain). The amino acid sequences were aligned by MEGA 7 [20] using the MUSCLE tool. The sequence alignment results and the corresponding PDB files were uploaded to the online tool ESPript [21], which annotated the secondary structural information to the alignment results (S1 Fig). The figures for the 3D structures and surface characteristics of the viral capsids were generated using PyMOL [22] and UCSF Chimera [23]. The overall structural similarity measured by root mean square deviation (RMSD) was calculated using PyMOL [22]. All parameters used were the default values.

Bioinformatics-based prediction of conformational epitopes

Borley et al. [24] developed a bioinformatics-based algorithm to predict the conformational epitopes for foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) by generating multiple chains. HPeV and FMDV, both belonging to the Picornaviridae family, have analogous capsid surface structures. Therefore, we developed a bioinformatics algorithm based on Borley et al.’s research to predict the conformational epitopes for HPeV, which mainly included the following steps.

First, the complete capsids of HPeV1 and HPeV3 were generated based on 3D structure coordinates and noncrystallographic symmetry information in the PDB files. Afterwards, the central chain (chain 1) and surrounding chains (chains 2, 3 and 4) were selected to form multiple chains, and each chain consisted of the VPs VP0, VP1 and VP3 (Fig 1A–1D). The 3D structure of some residues on the VP1 C-terminus, including the RGD motif, were not determined in HPeV1. Therefore, we built a homology model for those residues to estimate the location of the RGD motif before generating multiple chains. Ultimately, three residues (VP1-217S, -218S and -219R) in HPeV1 were modeled using SWISS-MODEL [25], based on the 3D structure of the VP1 C-terminus of HPeV3.

Second, three classical and freely accessible conformational epitope online prediction tools were employed to predict the epitopes for multiple chains. These were Ellipro [26], DiscoTope [27] and Epitopia [28], of which the thresholds were 0.174, 0.3 and -10.7, respectively. The residues with predicted values above the thresholds were predicted as the candidate epitopes.

Third, the prediction results for chain 1 were selected. Then, the residues exposed on the surface of the viral capsid were selected. Briefly, we calculated the average distance between the Cα atoms of all residues on the viral capsid and capsid center. Any residue on the capsid with a distance that was greater than average was included.

Finally, the voting method was applied to determine the final epitopes, including the core and surrounding epitopes (S2 Fig). The residues, simultaneously predicted as candidate epitopes by three prediction tools (Ellipro, DiscoTope and Epitopia), were defined as the core epitopes. The residues (at the same location in the sequence alignment between two serotypes) were defined as the surrounding epitopes of HPeV3 when they were predicted to be candidate epitopes by any two prediction tools and were the core epitopes in other serotypes of the same species (such as HPeV1). Based on the assumption of “similar structure, similar epitope”, we had expanded the predicted epitopes by adding surrounding epitopes, which was the main point of our modification to Borley et al.’s algorithm.

The accuracy of the predicted conformational epitopes

Borley et al. previously predicted the conformational epitopes of FMDV and compared them with known epitopes. We also predicted the epitopes of FMDV and compared them with Borley et al.’s results and known epitopes [29]. The PDB files for O1K and reduced O1K were not publicly available, thus, another two stains (O and SAT-2) were used instead. The PDB IDs for O, A, C, SAT-1 and SAT-2 are 1FOD, 1ZBE, 1FMD, 2WZR and 5ACA, respectively.

The antibody binding regions of HPeV1 and HPeV3, which were experimentally confirmed (experimental epitopes), were obtained by a literature search. The "footprint" of the capsid surface was generated using RIVEM [30]. Eventually, we evaluated the accuracy of the prediction algorithm by comparing the experimental epitopes with the predicted epitopes and analyzed the relationship between antibodies and conformational epitopes based on the footprint.

Results

Prediction results of the conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3

The predicted conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 are shown in Table 1 and Fig 1. Similar to CVA10 [17], the conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 also clustered into three sites (sites 1, 2 and 3). Site 1 (shown in red in Fig 1E and 1F), consisting of the VP1 BC and HI loops, was located on the northern rim near the fivefold vertex. Site 2 (shown in green in Fig 1E and 1F), composed of the VP1 C-terminus, was located near the puff. The VP1 C-terminus of HPeV1, protruding from the viral capsid surface, contained an RGD motif binding to the αvβ6 and αvβ3 receptors [31]. The prediction results showed that conformational epitopes existed in this region. However, lacking the RGD motif, the VP1 C-terminus of HPeV3 can also form a epitope. Site 3 (shown in blue in Fig 1E and 1F) was divided into two parts: one was located on the knob and mainly composed of the VP3 N-terminus; the other was close to the threefold vertex and mainly consisted of the VP0 HI and VP3 HI loops. Compared to HPeV3, three amino acid residues were missing at the VP3 N-terminus of HPeV1 (S1 Fig); therefore, VP3-87T, -91N, and -92H in HPeV1 and VP3-90T, -94S, and -95S in HPeV3 were actually at the same positions in the sequence alignment (S1 Fig and Table 1). In addition, the VP3 EF loop of HPeV1 and HPeV3 (167S and 170T, respectively) formed site 3 near the knob; the VP0 BC loop of HPeV1 (128P) participated in site 3 near the threefold vertex. It should be noted that Fig 1E and 1F shows the epitope distribution pattern, in which a few residues were from adjacent asymmetric units. The complete epitope distribution on the surface of the viral capsid is shown in S3 Fig, and we can see that site 2 on one asymmetric unit was actually very close to site 3 on the adjacent unit.

Table 1

Prediction results of conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3.

Name of epitopes	Capsid characteristics	Secondary structure	HPeV1a	HPeV3a
Site 1	North rim	VP1 BC loop	84T, 85N	82D, 84N, 85N, 87D
		VP1 HI loop	189G, 190T, 191S, 192T	187M, 188H, 189G, 190T, 191T, 192R
Site 2	Puff	VP1 C-terminus	216T, 217S, 218S, 219Rb	217G, 218S
Site 3	Knob	VP3 N-terminusc	87T, 91N, 92H	90T, 94S, 95S
		VP3 EF loopc	167S	170T
	Threefold vertex	VP0 BC loop	128P	-
		VP0 HI loop	254P, 255T, 256G, 257S, 259N	254P, 255T, 256G, 257A, 259N
		VP3 HI loopc	221N, 222S, 223S	224N, 225S, 226S

The bold letters represent the conserved amino acids between HPeV1 and HPeV3.

Since some residues of the VP1 C-terminus in HPeV1 were not determined in the 3D structure, we generated the homology model for those residues using SWISS-MODEL.

Compared to HPeV3, there are three amino acid residues missing in the N-terminus of HPeV1 VP3; therefore, VP3-87T in HPeV1 and VP3-90T in HPeV3 are actually at the same position in the sequence alignment.

The accuracy of predicted conformational epitopes

First, our algorithm was employed to predict the conformational epitopes of FMDV and the results were compared with Borley et al.’s (S1 Table). Because we had added surrounding epitopes to the prediction results through algorithm modification, the results should include Borley et al.’s epitopes. As expected, serotypes O, A, C and SAT-1 have 2, 3, 2 and 2 more epitopes than Borley et al.’s, respectively (S1 Table). However, serotypes C and SAT-1 had one less epitope on the VP2 EF loop. This was mainly due to the update of DiscoTope, which made the results slightly different from the previous. On the other hand, the added surrounding epitopes were not completely novel epitopes for FMDV. They were actually the epitopes of other serotypes. For example, there were epitopes predicted on the VP1 BC loop of serotypes A and C through algorithm modification. And these epitopes already existed in serotypes O, SAT-1 and SAT-2. Furthermore, the prediction results of surrounding epitopes were added through the assumption "similar structure, similar epitope", which made the distribution patterns of epitopes clearer (S2 Fig), and the differences in serotypes were mainly caused by the variations of amino acid residues on the epitopes. The prediction results of HPeVs can also observe such characteristics (Fig 3 and S1 Fig). These results proved that our algorithm modification was particularly suitable for epitope prediction and comparison of multiple closely related serotypes while ensuring the accuracy of prediction.

Fig 3

Comparison of the three-dimensional structures of the conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3.

The three-dimensional (3D) structure alignment and the corresponding close-up views of HPeV1 and HPeV3. HPeV1 and HPeV3 are colored in red and green, respectively. The sequence alignment consists of 4 strains of HPeV1 and 4 strains of HPeV3. It is adjacent to the corresponding 3D structures. (a-c) The 3D structure and sequence alignment of the BC loop (a), HI loop (b) and C-terminus (c) of VP1. (d-e) The 3D structure and sequence alignment of the BC loop (d) and HI loop (e) of VP0. (f-h) The 3D structure and sequence alignment of the N-terminus (f), EF loop (g) and HI loop (h) of VP3. A symbol (*) in the 3D structure notes that this residue is predicted as a conformational epitope. A symbol (•) or (▲) in the sequence alignment notes that this residue is predicted as a core epitope (•) or surrounding epitope (▲).

Secondly, the reported experimental epitopes of HPeV1 [8] and HPeV3 [7], obtained through a literature search, were identified by mAbs AM28 and AT12-015, respectively. Additionally, the RGD motif on VP1 of HPeV1 was a linear epitope binding to mAb AM18 [8]. The epitopes proposed above highly overlapped with our predicted epitopes, indicating that the prediction results were very accurate (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Conformational epitopes and antibody footprints on the HPeV1 and HPeV3 capsid surface.

The figure shows stereographic projections of the HPeV1 and HPeV3 virion capsid surface. (A and B) Residues of VP1, VP0 and VP3 of HPeV1 (A) and HPeV3 (B) are colored in light pink, light blue and light orange, respectively; residues involved in conformational epitope sites 1, 2 and 3 are shown in red, green and blue, respectively. (A) The integrin-binding site in HPeV1 is shown as a dashed line. Regions involved in binding mAbs AM28 and AM18 are shown as a solid line colored in red and purple, respectively. The residues of VP3-91N and -92H and VP0-257S in HPeV1 are indicated by a solid green line. (B) Regions involved in binding mAb AT12-015 are shown as a solid yellow line. The residues of VP1-N84D, VP1-S186L and VP3-H206Y are shown by a solid magenta line. (C and D) The surfaces of HPeV1 (C) and HPeV3 (D) are colored blue to red, according to the distance from the particle center (red representing the furthest distance). The icosahedral asymmetric unit is also indicated by a black triangle. The positions of the icosahedral symmetry axes are indicated by pentagons (fivefold vertex), triangles (threefold vertex), and ovals (twofold vertex).

MAb AM28 bound to the residues on the VP0 BC, CD, and HI loops and the VP3 N-terminus, BC loop and EF loop of HPeV1. These binding regions highly overlapped with site 3 (Fig 2A and 2C). In fact, mAb AM28 spanned two adjacent asymmetric units of HPeV1, with one portion binding to the knob and the other to the threefold vertex of the adjacent unit; this might stabilize the viral capsid and inhibit virus uncoating. The RGD motif was located at site 2 in HPeV1, which can bind to the receptors αvβ6 and αvβ3, and was also the linear epitope for the mAb AM18 (Fig 2A and 2C). Several residues preceding the RGD motif were generated by homology modeling. Thus, the modeled residues (VP1-216T, -217S, -218S, and -219R) were predicted as conformational epitopes, indicating that the RGD motif is both a linear and conformational epitope. Therefore, mAb AM18 can block HPeV1 infection by competitively binding site 2 with the integrin receptor.

MAb AT12-015 mainly bound to the VP1 BC loop, EF loop, C-terminus and the VP3 BC, EF and GH loops of HPeV3, spanning three sites. The VP1-85N and -87D in site 1, VP1-217G and -218S in site 2 and knob in site 3 were similar to three anchors fixing the mAb AT12-015 in the flat canyon region (Fig 2B and 2D). The neutralizing effect of mAb AT12-015 might directly or indirectly block the receptors from binding to HPeV3. Unfortunately, information on HPeV3 receptors is still unknown. Mutations of four residues, VP1-N84D, -S186L, -V195A and VP3-H206Y, can help HPeV3 evade the neutralization of mAb AT12-015 [32]. The first three mutations were located at site 1 (Fig 2B and 2D). VP1-84N, adjacent to VP1-85N and -87D, which is the anchor of mAb AT12-015, was in the prediction epitope. VP1-S186L and -V195A were located on the VP1 HI loop and βI sheet of HPeV3, respectively, and were partially or completely covered by site 1. Mutations in these three residues might loosen the anchoring effect of VP1-85N and -87D for mAb AT12-015.

Comparison of conformational epitopes between HPeV1 and HPeV3

The numbers of residues contained in the VPs of HPeV1 and HPeV3 are approximately 776 and 774, respectively (S1 Fig). The VP1 of HPeV1 and HPeV3 is composed of 234 and 229 residues, respectively; VP0 contains 289 residues; and VP3 consists of 253 and 256 residues, respectively (13, 14, 16). The sequence identities between HPeV1 and HPeV3 are 71.8% (VP1), 74.9% (VP0) and 77.7% (VP3), respectively. The RMSD between HPeV1 and HPeV3 was 0.476 Å and the RMSDs of VP1, VP0 and VP3 were 0.484 Å, 0.427 Å and 0.478 Å, respectively.

The conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 were composed of three sites with 23 and 24 residues, respectively, of which 20 residues were shared by both serotypes. Therefore, HPeV1 and HPeV3 had highly consistent epitope distribution patterns (Table 1 and Fig 1).

At site 1, the epitopes on the VP1 BC loop of HPeV3 were four conserved residues, VP1-82D, -84N, -85N and -87D, and HPeV1 were VP1-82T, -84T, -85N/D and -87G; the epitopes on the VP1 HI loop of HPeV3 were six conserved residues, VP1-187M, -188H, -189G, -190T, -191T and -192R, and HPeV1 were VP1-187L, -188T, -189G, -190T, -191S/T and -192T (Table 1 and Fig 3). This indicated that the positions of the epitopes in site 1 of HPeV1 and HPeV3 were highly consistent, but the residues varied largely.

The RGD motif binding to the integrin receptor was located at site 2 of HPeV1 but was absent in HPeV3. It is still unclear whether this region is the binding site of the receptor in HPeV3 (Table 1 and Fig 3).

The amino acid residues in site 3 were highly conserved between HPeV1 and HPeV3, except for individual residues such as VP3-91N/94S and -92H/95S and VP0-257S/A (Table 1, Figs 3 and 4). Furthermore, multiple sequence alignments of HPeV1-19 amino acid sequences revealed that VP3-91N and -92H and VP0-257S were specific and conserved residues in HPeV1 and HPeV2 (Fig 4 and S2 Table). Intriguingly, mAb AM28 can only neutralize HPeV1 and HPeV2 but not HPeV3-6 [8], and these three residues were just the binding site of AM28 (Fig 2A and 2C). The findings mentioned above implied that VP3-91N and -92H and VP0-257S were the key sites for AM28 binding to HPeV1 and were also of great significance in distinguishing HPeV1 and HPeV3.

Fig 4

Sequence alignment of the conformational epitope in site 3 among HPeV1-6.

The secondary structure elements from HPeV1 (Harris strain) are shown above the alignment as β-sheets (arrows). The predicted epitopes (black circles) for HPeV1 and HPeV3 are indicated on the corresponding protein sequence. Sequence annotations on the left side represent the virus genotypes and GenBank IDs. Sequence identities among all the HPeVs are colored on a scale of white (no identity) to red (full identity).

Discussion

Traditionally, conformational epitopes were predicted by classical bioinformatics algorithms, including Ellipro, DiscoTope and Epitopia, which are based on the 3D structure of a protein [26-28]. Ellipro [26] represents the protein structure as a simple ellipsoid, from which the regions protruding most are more likely to be the epitopes. Therefore, calculating the protrusion index for each residue is implemented to predict the conformational epitopes. DiscoTope [27] defines a novel spatial neighborhood concept, which is the basis for employing a surface measure consisting of propensity scores and half-sphere exposure. Epitopia [28] predicts epitopes by calculating immunogenic scores that integrate features such as solvent accessibility and residue composition by the Naïve Bayes classifier. Borley et al. [24] used the consistent results of three prediction tools (Ellipro, DiscoTope and Epitopia) as the final predicted epitopes, which facilitated the specificity and accuracy of the prediction results. More importantly, traditional algorithms only treat a VP as an isolated protein when predicting epitopes. Actually, in picornaviruses, such as FMDV and HPeV, the VPs are not isolated but constitute an asymmetric unit together. Then, 60 asymmetric units are assembled into a capsid. In this circumstance, parts of the VPs are buried in the capsid and unlikely to be conformational epitopes (exceptionally, there are some epitopes underneath the capsid that have contact with the outside of the capsid through "capsid breathing" [10, 33]). Therefore, residues buried in the capsid that are successfully predicted as epitopes can be considered false positives of algorithms. To decrease false positives and vastly improve the specificity and accuracy of prediction results, Borley et al. built multiple chains to mimic the whole capsid for predictions (if the complete capsid is used, this would far exceed the computational power of the existing algorithm). Thus, this algorithm has broad application prospects in predicting conformational epitopes of picornaviruses.

Since the resolutions of 3D structures are not completely the same and some random errors occur in structural determination, we have made some modifications for Borley et al.’s algorithm by defining the concepts of “core epitope” and “surrounding epitope” based on the assumption “similar structure, similar epitope”. The final prediction results of epitopes consist of core epitopes and surrounding epitopes. Core epitope refers to the consistent results among all three prediction tools as Borley et al. did. Surrounding epitope need the assistance of another serotype/serotypes with the evolutionary close relationship such as the serotype of the same species. For example, VP3 knob of HPeV1 (-87T, -91N and -92H) was predicted as epitope only by two tools, however, it was the core epitope of HPeV3 (S1 Fig). Thus, it was considered as the surrounding epitope of HPeV1. Actually, VP3 knob is an important epitope of HPeV1: mAb AM28 binds to the regions including VP3 knob; -91N and -92H may be specific residues for the binding of mAb AM28 to HPeV1 and HPeV2 (see results). This showed that our modification may avoid the Borley et al.’s excessively rigid algorithm. In addition, some residues on the surface of the capsid (such as the VP1 C-terminus) were missing in the 3D structure, which not only directly affected the prediction, but also exposed the internal residues. This may lead to false positive prediction results. In fact, epitopes were usually located on highly flexible loops where the deletions were more likely to occur. Therefore, the missing residues were imputed through homology modeling. Furthermore, because the HPeVs had long C-terminus, it was impossible to directly generate multiple chains using Borley et al.’s method. A complete capsid was constructed and then was used to generate multiple chains.

In a previous study, we applied this method to systematically predict the conformational epitopes of CVA10 [17] and found that these epitopes clustered into three sites (sites 1, 2 and 3): site 1 is located on the northern rim of the canyon near the fivefold vertex, and site 2 is on the puff. Site 3 is divided into two parts: one is located on the knob, and the other is close to the threefold vertex. This epitope distribution pattern was highly consistent with those from the other two human enteroviruses, rhinovirus B14 (RVB14) and PV1, suggesting that it is the basic pattern of epitope distribution in human enteroviruses [34, 35]. In the present study, we explored whether this epitope distribution pattern exists on HPeV. We found that the conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 also present a three-cluster distribution pattern, which is basically consistent with enteroviruses such as CVA10. Compared to CVA10, fewer residues are contained on the VP0 EF loop and VP1 GH loop. The puff is flat and it is difficult to form conformational epitopes, for which the site 2 in HPeV1 and HPeV3 is mainly composed of the VP1 C-terminus. The number of residues predicted to be epitopes is much less in HPeV1 (23 residues) and HPeV3 (24 residues) than that in CVA10 (45 residues), which is consistent with the flatter surfaces of the HPeV1 and HPeV3 capsids.

The distribution patterns of conformational epitopes in HPeV1 and HPeV3 are highly consistent, but the residues that form the epitopes are different. And the difference degree is similar to that of the human enterovirus A71 (EV71) and coxsackievirus A16 (CVA16) (unpublished data). At site 1, there are a total of 10 residues in the HPeV3 epitopes, half of which differ from those in HPeV1. The RGD motif was located at site 2 in HPeV1, which can bind to the receptors αvβ6 and αvβ3, and it was also the linear epitope for the mAb AM18. Therefore, mAb AM18 can block HPeV1 infection by competitively binding site 2 with the integrin receptor. Similar to HPeV1, FMDV uses RGD motif (VP1 GH loop instead of VP1 C-terminus) to bind integrin receptors and it could be blocked by mAbs like mAb 10D5 [36]. However, integrin is only an attachment receptor for HPeV1 and there may be an unidentified receptor involved for the capsid uncoating, which binds to the predicted epitopes in the study. Site 2 in HPeV3 lacks the RGD motif possessed by HPeV1 and fails to bind to integrin receptors [9]. Although the residues on site 3 in both viruses are highly homogeneous, the variations of the three key residues VP3-91N/94S, VP3-92H/95S and VP0-257S/A have an impact on the binding capacity of the mAb AM28. This demonstrates that the mutations of these residues in the epitopes generate different HPeV genotypes. In HPeV1, the binding sites of the integrin receptor and mAb AM18 are located in site 2, and the site of mAb AM28 is located in site 3 [8]. However, there is no report showing that mAb can bind to site 1. Site 1 is located in the northern rim of the canyon, which is also the location of epitope NIm-I of RVB14 [34], N-AgI of PV1 [35] and mAb 28–7 binding to EV71 [37]. These results suggest that site 1 has a high probability of being a conformational epitope. Only one mAb of HPeV3 [7, 9] has been reported, named AT12-015, and the mode of this mAb binding to the viral capsid is very special. It not only binds to the relatively protruding residues on the capsid surface but also crosses three sites to bind to the flat canyon (Fig 2B and 2D). Strain-dependent neutralization also proved that the "anchor" VP1-85N and -87D on site 1 is very important for the binding of AT12-015 [32].

In summary, we developed a bioinformatics algorithm based on Borley et al.’s multiple chains to predict the conformational epitopes for HPeVs and found that the epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 also clustered into three sites. HPeV1 and HPeV3 have a highly consistent epitope distribution pattern, but the mutant residues at the epitopes produce different HPeV genotypes. We hope that the exploration of epitopes of HPeVs can help monitor their antigenic evolution like influenza viruses [12-16]. Additionally, the three residues (VP3-91N and -92H and VP0-257S) on site 3 may play a pivotal role in AM28 binding to HPeV1, and two residues (VP1-85N and -87D) on site 1 may be the key residues of AT12-015 binding to HPeV3.

Conclusions

We found that the conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 had similar distribution patterns. Five residues involved in conformational epitopes were key sites for mAb binding. This study is of great significance to understand the pathogenesis mechanisms of HPeV infections and develop antiviral antibodies.

Comparison of our and Borley et al.’s prediction results for FMDV.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The sequence conservation of VP3-91, -92 and VP0-257 among HPeV1-19.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The sequence alignment of VP1, VP0 and VP3 of HPeV1 and HPeV3.

The secondary structure elements and predicted epitopes from the HPeV1and HPeV3 are shown on the corresponding protein sequence alignment as β-sheets (arrows), α-helices (spirals), and the predicted core epitopes (black circles) and surrounding epitopes (black triangles). Sequence annotations on the left side represent to the virus genotypes and corresponding VP. Sequence identities between HPeV1 and HPeV3 are colored on a scale of white (no identity) to red (full identity).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The schematic depiction of core epitopes and surrounding epitopes.

The symbols used in this figure are the same as S1 Fig.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Predicted conformational epitopes of the multiple chains of HPeV1 and HPeV3.

The complete conformational epitopes of the multiple chains of HPeV1 (A) and HPeV3 (B) are presented. The colors and symbols used in this figure are the same as those in Fig 1.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

24 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-27668

Bioinformatics-based prediction of conformational epitopes for human parechovirus

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dong,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Both reviewers noticed that the main method used for the study was adapted from the original publication but that the modifications were not completely described. This is not in line with the PLOS publication criteria and must be addressed.

The manuscript should also be adapted to be more clear wherever possible and include all relevant introduction, method description and discussion as indicated by the reviewers.

The issues to address are listed below

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ivan Sabol

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the manuscript entitled ‘Bioinformatics-based prediction of conformational epitopes for Human Parechovirus’ Rong et al used previously published bioinformatics tools (Borley et al, 2013) with some modifications to predict conformational epitopes on the surface of parechovirus capsids. This study might be of interest for therapeutic antibody development mainly to treat neonatal parechovirus infections.

The manuscript in its current form, however, is not suitable for publication.

Major points:

The introduction is not comprehensively written. The research question and the related topic is not properly introduced and it is very hard for the reader to grasp what has been done and why. The method and why it was chosen is not clear. In addition, it is not clear why authors chose parechoviruses for their analysis. They mention that it is important for vaccine design and monitoring of antigenic evolution like in case with influenza. Parechoviruses are not comparable with influenza virus because (as authors mentioned) seroprevalence increases with age and 6 year and older children have 100% protection for HPeV1 and 85% for HPeV3. Parechoviruses are the main threat for neonates for whom vaccines is not an option. Authors should reconsider the impact of their study.

It is very confusing why authors add published results obtained with CVA10.

The accuracy of conformational epitope prediction largely depends on the accuracy of 3D structures of viruses of interest. It is not mentioned in the text how accurate structures for HPeV1 and HPeV3 are, which were basis for current study. Authors also mention that part of the polypeptide missing from the structures was modelled which hampers the accuracy of the structure. In addition, there are very few experimentally confirmed epitopes to validate the results. Authors may argue that the method has been published, but there were some modifications introduced.

Methods are not sufficiently described.

The result section sounds very repetitive. Additionally, for comparison authors randomly chose only few isolates from 6 parechovirus types. It is of importance to evaluate the similarity of predicted epitopes in as large number of isolates as possible from all parechovirus types to make some conclusions.

Part of Figure 1 and Suppl Figures 1-3 show only trivial information published elsewhere in a very similar way. Should be excluded. Authors should make less repetitive figures (eg Suppl Fig 1 and 2) clearly showing the point of interest.

Specific points:

Page 3 lines 55-57: it is not clear why authors choose CVA10 for comparison, as this is relevant to all picornaviruses.

Page 3 line 59: term ‘viral maturation’ might be misleading in this context. Should be rephrased.

Page 4 line 65: It is very obscure what is ‘structural protein’? It should be ‘part of polyprotein encoding for structural proteins’.

Page 4 line 69: it is not clear how many strains are included in the comparison.

70-71: it is true for all picornaviruses thus it is misleading to mention only enteroviruses.

Page 4 lines 73-78: Authors describe data published by others (Shakeel et al 2016, Domanska et al, 2019, and Kalynych et al, 2015), thus the Fig 1A-F has no additional value.

Page 5 line 93: This is definition for conformational epitopes. It is unclear what authors mean by ‘B-cell conformational epitopes’. Needs further explanation.

Table 1. It is not clear why authors add already published results into the Table 1 alongside with unpublished data. The better place for published data is discussion.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, Rong et al presented analysis of conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 using a modified protocol based on the work of Borley et al. They identified three potential sites of conformational epitopes, of which two can be corroborated with previous work. All three sites have also been identified in CVA10 in the author’s previous work. Overall, the work is well presented and of interest within the picornavirus community.

I have few comments on the manuscripts:

1. Please expand more how you modified the method described in Borley et al.

2. Can the authors re-do the analysis of FMDV which formed the basis of the work of Borley et al to see whether their modification in the protocol affected the analysis of FMDV as well. And also include this analysis on FMDV as the second comparison besides the one they do with CVA10.

3. Can the authors comment on whether the receptor-binding sites overlap with the conformational epitopes for other picornaviruses for which receptors as well as conformational epitopes are known? They can include a comment on HPeV1 that even though the conformational epitope of HPeV1 do not overlap with the integrin-binding site, but the integrin is only an attachment receptor and there may be, yet another unidentified receptor involved for destablizing the capsid for genome release which may be using the same site as the conformational epitopes identified in this study.

4. Can the authors include a Q-score from PDBeFold or some other structural similarity measure such as rmsd between the HPeV1 and HPeV3 capsid structures. This would provide an idea about overall structural similarity between these viruses.

5. In line 35, please add monoclonal antibody in front of AM28.

6. In line 151, please remove the word “crystal” as there is no crystal structure of HPeV3 VP1.

7. In line 280, please replace * with a black dot because that’s what you in the corresponding figure 3.

8. In line 350, please clarify what the authors meant by “Dissimilarly”.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Jan 2021

To reviewers:

Thanks for the careful reviewing and constructive suggestions. These suggestions improve the quality of the manuscript greatly. In this study, we modified Borley’s algorithm and applied to the prediction of the conformational epitopes for HPeV1 and HPeV3. In the revision, we highlighted the modification and compared the prediction results for foot and mouth disease virus (FMDV) with Borley et al.’s. The comparison showed that our algorithm can capture more epitopes than Borley et al.’s and exhibited more clear distribution patterns of epitopes. Since HPeVs and coxsackievirus A10 (CVA10) both belong to the Picornaviridae family and have analogous capsid surface structures, we compared HPeVs’ structures and epitopes with CVA10 (our published work) previously. In the revision, we removed this part and just discussed briefly in the discussion.

Thanks again.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Changzheng Dong

Ningbo University School of Medicine

Reviewer #1: In the manuscript entitled ‘Bioinformatics-based prediction of conformational epitopes for Human Parechovirus’ Rong et al used previously published bioinformatics tools (Borley et al, 2013) with some modifications to predict conformational epitopes on the surface of parechovirus capsids. This study might be of interest for therapeutic antibody development mainly to treat neonatal parechovirus infections. The manuscript in its current form, however, is not suitable for publication.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the comment. We revised the manuscript intensely and hope it could meet the journal’s publication criteria.

Major points: The introduction is not comprehensively written. The research question and the related topic is not properly introduced and it is very hard for the reader to grasp what has been done and why. The method and why it was chosen is not clear. In addition, it is not clear why authors chose parechoviruses for their analysis. They mention that it is important for vaccine design and monitoring of antigenic evolution like in case with influenza. Parechoviruses are not comparable with influenza virus because (as authors mentioned) seroprevalence increases with age and 6 year and older children have 100% protection for HPeV1 and 85% for HPeV3. Parechoviruses are the main threat for neonates for whom vaccines is not an option. Authors should reconsider the impact of their study.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestions. The abstract and the introduction have been rewritten. “Human parechoviruses (HPeVs) are human pathogens that usually cause diseases ranging from rash to neonatal sepsis in young children. HPeV1 and HPeV3 are the most frequently reported genotypes and their three-dimensional structures have been determined. However, there is a lack of systematic research on the antigenic epitopes of HPeVs, which are useful for understanding virus-receptor interactions, developing antiviral agents or molecular diagnostic tools, and monitoring antigenic evolution. Thus, we systematically predicted and compared the conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 using bioinformatics methods in the study.” Borley et al.’s algorithm is a good method for the picornaviruses’ epitope prediction. We modified the algorithm and applied to HPeVs.

It is very confusing why authors add published results obtained with CVA10.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. Since the conformational epitopes of CVA10 has been predicted using the similar method, we wanted to compare HPeVs with CVA10 previously. In the revision, the CVA10 related contents are deleted from the introduction, methods and results. But a brief discussion is kept in the discussion. Now the manuscript seems more concise.

The accuracy of conformational epitope prediction largely depends on the accuracy of 3D structures of viruses of interest. It is not mentioned in the text how accurate structures for HPeV1 and HPeV3 are, which were basis for current study.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. The atomic-level resolutions for HPeV1 (4Z92) and HPeV3 (6GV4) are 3.10 Å and 2.80 Å, respectively. It is provided in the revision.

Authors also mention that part of the polypeptide missing from the structures was modelled which hampers the accuracy of the structure.

Authors’ response: Several residues on the VP1 C-terminus (including the RGD motif) were missing in the 3D structure of HPeV1. The phenomena is common for picornaviruses due to the flexibility of the loops and termini, which is the characteristic of epitopes. We modeled only three residues (VP1-217S, -218S and -219R) in HPeV1 based on the conserved residues from HPeV3 without missing in the 3D structure. The predicted epitope based on the homology modeling is also marked (Table 1).

In addition, there are very few experimentally confirmed epitopes to validate the results. Authors may argue that the method has been published, but there were some modifications introduced.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. The accuracy of the algorithm is assessed with various evidences. Firstly, the algorithm is compared to Borley et al.’s according to the results of FMDV (provided in the revision). Secondly, the direct evidences from the experimentally confirmed epitopes. Thirdly, the indirect evidences from CVA10 and other enteroviruses such as rhinovirus and poliovirus.

Methods are not sufficiently described.

Authors’ response: We revised the methods especially for the algorithm modification.

The result section sounds very repetitive. Additionally, for comparison authors randomly chose only few isolates from 6 parechovirus types. It is of importance to evaluate the similarity of predicted epitopes in as large number of isolates as possible from all parechovirus types to make some conclusions.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. In the revision, we used all HPeV1-6 strains with the complete genome sequences from NCBI Nucleotide database (S2 Table) and the results are same. For the aim of illustration, Figs 3 and 4 use limited strains as before.

Part of Figure 1 and S1-S3 Fig show only trivial information published elsewhere in a very similar way. Should be excluded. Authors should make less repetitive figures (eg S1 and S2 Fig) clearly showing the point of interest.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. In the revision, the CVA10 related contents are deleted (previous S1 and S2 Fig) and Fig 1 was also modified. Now the manuscript seems more concise.

Specific points:

Page 3 lines 55-57: it is not clear why authors choose CVA10 for comparison, as this is relevant to all picornaviruses.

Authors’ response: Since the conformational epitopes of CVA10 has been predicted using the similar method, we wanted to compare HPeV with CVA10 previously. Now the CVA10 related contents are deleted from the introduction, methods and results. But a brief description is kept in the discussion.

Page 3 line 59: term ‘viral maturation’ might be misleading in this context. Should be rephrased.

Authors’ response: The term “viral maturation” was deleted in the revision.

Page 4 line 65: It is very obscure what is ‘structural protein’? It should be ‘part of polyprotein encoding for structural proteins’.

Authors’ response: We used “viral protein (VP)” instead of “structural protein” in the revision.

Page 4 line 69: it is not clear how many strains are included in the comparison.

Authors’ response: In the paragraph (Fig S1), only two strains are used to estimate the sequence identity between HPeV1 and HPeV3. Since they are two different genotypes (serotypes), the identity varies slightly if more strains are included.

70-71: it is true for all picornaviruses thus it is misleading to mention only enteroviruses.

Authors’ response: Previously we aimed to compare with enteroviruses such as CVA10. Now the related contents are deleted in the revision.

Page 4 lines 73-78: Authors describe data published by others (Shakeel et al 2016, Domanska et al, 2019, and Kalynych et al, 2015), thus the Fig 1A-F has no additional value.

Authors’ response: Fig 1 exhibits the multiple chains and the predicted epitopes on the capsids to help understand the algorithm and the distribution patterns of the epitopes. However, it did not use any published data by others. Actually, those data (Shakeel et al, 2016, and Domanska et al, 2019) were used in Fig 2 to assess the accuracy of the prediction.

Page 5 line 93: This is definition for conformational epitopes. It is unclear what authors mean by ‘B-cell conformational epitopes’. Needs further explanation.

Authors’ response: we used “conformational epitopes” directly instead of ambiguous word “B-cell conformational epitopes” in the revision.

Table 1. It is not clear why authors add already published results into the Table 1 alongside with unpublished data. The better place for published data is discussion.

Authors’ response: we deleted the content about comparing with CVA10 from the introduction, methods and results.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, Rong et al presented analysis of conformational epitopes of HPeV1 and HPeV3 using a modified protocol based on the work of Borley et al. They identified three potential sites of conformational epitopes, of which two can be corroborated with previous work. All three sites have also been identified in CVA10 in the author’s previous work. Overall, the work is well presented and of interest within the picornavirus community.

I have few comments on the manuscripts:

1. Please expand more how you modified the method described in Borley et al.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. We highlighted the modification and compared to Borley et al.’s algorithm in the methods, results and discussion.

2. Can the authors re-do the analysis of FMDV which formed the basis of the work of Borley et al to see whether their modification in the protocol affected the analysis of FMDV as well. And also include this analysis on FMDV as the second comparison besides the one they do with CVA10.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestions. It’s a good idea to assess the accuracy of our modification. We reanalyzed the epitopes of FMDV and compared to Borley et al.’s. We revised the manuscript in the methods, results and discussion.

3. Can the authors comment on whether the receptor-binding sites overlap with the conformational epitopes for other picornaviruses for which receptors as well as conformational epitopes are known? They can include a comment on HPeV1 that even though the conformational epitope of HPeV1 do not overlap with the integrin-binding site, but the integrin is only an attachment receptor and there may be, yet another unidentified receptor involved for destablizing the capsid for genome release which may be using the same site as the conformational epitopes identified in this study.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestions. Similar to HPeV1, FMDV uses RGD motif (VP1 GH loop instead of VP1 C-terminus) to bind integrin receptors and it could be blocked by mAbs. For example, the binding of integrin αvβ6 can be specially inhibited by mAb 10D5 (Terry Jackson et al., J Virol 2000). Just like the reviewer’s comment, the unidentified uncoating receptor for HPeV1 may bind to the predicted conformational epitopes in the study. We provide these comments in the discussion.

4. Can the authors include a Q-score from PDBeFold or some other structural similarity measure such as rmsd between the HPeV1 and HPeV3 capsid structures. This would provide an idea about overall structural similarity between these viruses.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. The root mean square deviation (RMSD) of structural difference (Cα atoms in a asymmetric unit) calculated by PyMol between HPeV1 and HPeV3 is 0.476 Å and the RMSDs of VP1, VP0 and VP3 are 0.484 Å, 0.427 Å and 0.478 Å, respectively, which exhibits a high structural similarity between these two genotypes. It was provided in the revision.

5. In line 35, please add monoclonal antibody in front of AM28.

Authors’ response: It was corrected in the revision.

6. In line 151, please remove the word “crystal” as there is no crystal structure of HPeV3 VP1.

Authors’ response: In the sentence, “crystal structure” should be “3D structure”. It was corrected in the revision.

7. In line 280, please replace * with a black dot because that’s what you in the corresponding figure 3.

Authors’ response: There are both symbols “*” and black dot in the figure 3 and we forgot to note the meaning of the symbol “*”. It was corrected in the revision.

8. In line 350, please clarify what the authors meant by “Dissimilarly”.

Authors’ response: The ambiguous word “Dissimilarly” was deleted.

Major revision list:

1. The abstract and the introduction have been rewritten.

2. Table 1 and Fig 1 were modified to remove CVA10 related. Previous S2 and S3 Figs (CVA10 related) were deleted. New S2 Fig was provided to present core and surrounding epitopes. S1 Table was provided to compare the algorithm with Borley et al.’s. S2 Table was used to describe the sequence conservation among HPeV1-6.

3. CVA10 related contents were deleted from introduction, materials and methods, and results.

4. Algorithm modification to Borley et al.’s was highlighted in materials and methods, results, and discussion. The epitopes of FMDV were predicted and compared them with Borley's results and known epitopes to assess the algorithm accuracy.

8 Feb 2021

Bioinformatics-based prediction of conformational epitopes for human parechovirus

PONE-D-20-27668R1

Dear Dr. Dong,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Reviewer 1 has made some small suggestions that could further improve the manuscript if possible. These changes will not go through another round of peer review.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ivan Sabol

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript by Rong et al entitled ‘Bioinformatics-based prediction of conformational epitopes for Human Parechovirus’ has greatly improved compared to previous version. Authors described modification of the algorithm originally used by Borley et al. in more detail. Authors also verified and compared new modification using previously published data by Borley et al. The repetitive content has been removed; abstract and introduction have been revised, and discussion modified accordingly.

Could authors still include the comprehensive list of HPeV types in the sequence conservation analysis? Currently authors provide data for only HPeV1-6 types, whereas there are 19 types recognized (S2 Table).

P 3 line 60, please use ‘Like other picornaviruses’ instead of ‘Like most picornaviruses’.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

23 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-27668R1

Bioinformatics-based prediction of conformational epitopes for Human Parechovirus

Dear Dr. Dong:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ivan Sabol

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE