| Literature DB >> 34296852 |
Nicholas E Brunk1,2,3, Reidun Twarock4.
Abstract
The viral protein containers that encapsulate a virus' genetic material are repurposed as virus-like particles in a host of nanotechnology applications, including cargo delivery, storage, catalysis, and vaccination. These viral architectures have evolved to sit on the knife's edge between stability, to provide adequate protection for their genetic cargoes, and instability, to enable their efficient and timely release in the host cell environment upon environmental cues. By introducing a percolation theory for viral capsids, we demonstrate that the geometric characteristics of a viral capsid in terms of its subunit layout and intersubunit interaction network are key for its disassembly behavior. A comparative analysis of all alternative homogeneously tiled capsid structures of the same stoichiometry identifies evolutionary drivers favoring specific viral geometries in nature and offers a guide for virus-like particle design in nanotechnology.Entities:
Keywords: generalized quasi-equivalence principle; percolation theory; virus disassembly; virus nanotechnology; virus-like particle
Year: 2021 PMID: 34296852 PMCID: PMC8397427 DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c01882
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Nano ISSN: 1936-0851 Impact factor: 15.881
Figure 1Protein layouts and interaction networks for different capsid geometries. There are three distinct types of structural organization in the viral capsids that are classed as T = 3 architectures in Caspar Klug theory: (A) the triangular tiling in which each subunit is trivalent, as is the case for Pariacoto virus (1f8v); (B) the kite-shaped tiling in which each subunit is tetravalent, as is the case for Tobacco Ring virus (1a6c); (C) the rhombic tiling in which each subunit is tetravalent, as is the case for bacteriophage MS2 (2ms2). Underneath are shown the dual tilings superimposed on the capsids, which encode the topology of the interaction network.
Figure 2Some viral architectures are less stable and more prone to fragmentation. (a) The rapidly decaying, sigmoidal probability, P, that a given T = 3 architecture is still connected, as a function of the fraction f of subunits removed, computed by averaging 100,000 Monte Carlo replicates per data point. The fragmentation threshold of each viral blueprint is indicated by gridlines. (b) The T-number construction for virus tilings according to Caspar and Klug.[16] An equilateral triangle, representing one of the 20 triangular faces of an icosahedron, is embedded into a hexagonal lattice such that the corners of the triangle are located in the centers of hexagons. The triangles corresponding to a T = 3 and T = 4 embedding are shown in orange and red, respectively. (c) The spherical architecture corresponding to the T = 3 and T = 4 embeddings are shown together with their corresponding dual triangulations to their right; the orange, and respectively red, triangles from (b) are shown superimposed. (d) Structures of the homogeneously tiled virus architectures, for which subunit and bond fragmentation thresholds (f and f) have been computed (Table ), demonstrating their dependence on capsid size. (e) The subunit (left) and bond (right) fragmentation thresholds for selected kite, rhombic, and triangular tilings of sizes up to T = 36. The subunit fragmentation threshold for rhombic T = 4 tilings has already been experimentally confirmed for HBV;[7,19] others remain to be observed. The kite tiling is the most stable, followed by rhombic tilings, while triangular tilings are the most prone to fragmentation.
Fragmentation Thresholds f and f for Different Tiling Types and Sizes
| tiling type | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0.226 | 0.228 | |
| 4 | 0.205 | 0.19 | |
| 7 | 0.169 | 0.159 | |
| triangular | 9 | 0.156 | 0.147 |
| 12 | 0.142 | 0.134 | |
| 27 | 0.108 | 0.104 | |
| 36 | 0.098 | 0.094 | |
| 3 | 0.278 | 0.297 | |
| 4 | 0.26 | 0.264 | |
| 7 | 0.227 | 0.234 | |
| rhombic | 9 | 0.214 | 0.221 |
| 12 | 0.199 | 0.206 | |
| 27 | 0.164 | 0.169 | |
| 36 | 0.153 | 0.157 | |
| kite | 3 | 0.331 | 0.344 |
Parameters Directly Relevant to Our Percolation Theory Model
| parameter | definition |
|---|---|
| initial capsid tiling’s subunit valency (edges per vertex) | |
| fraction of vertices/subunits deleted (independent variable) | |
| fraction of edges/bonds deleted (independent variable) | |
| fraction of vertices/tiles remaining | |
| fraction of edges/bonds remaining | |
| probability remaining subunits are connected (dependent variable) | |
| vertex
fragmentation threshold (where | |
| bond fragmentation threshold (where | |
| vertex percolation threshold | |
| bond percolation threshold |
Figure 3Fragment size distributions for different capsid types: (a) triangular, (b) kite, and (c) rhombic tiling design. Middle and bottom row: The histogram probability density functions (PDFs) of fragments of various sizes with normally distributed f corresponding to 10% (blue), 20% (purple), 30% (gold), and 40% (green) subunit removal from the respective capsids/tilings (middle row) and edge removal from the corresponding interaction networks (bottom). These curves exclude the explicitly removed subunits and are overlaid with the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), the slope of which indicates the fraction of species of that size. Interestingly, random bond breakage does not exhibit the same gradual decrease in fragment size until complete dissociation, as is observed experimentally for the dissociation of passivated subunits. Our theory predicts abrupt fragmentation beyond the fragmentation threshold and identifies expected concentrations that are experimentally measurable.