Kejie Mou1, Mohnad Abdalla2, Dong Qing Wei3,4, Muhammad Tahir Khan5, Madeeha Shahzad Lodhi5, Doaa B Darwish6, Mohamed Sharaf7,8, Xudong Tu9. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Bishan Hospital of Chongqing, Chongqing, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Chemical Biology (Ministry of Education), Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, 44 Cultural West Road, Shandong Province, 250012, PR China. 3. State Key Laboratory of Microbial Metabolism, Shanghai-Islamabad-Belgrade Joint Innovation Center on Antibacterial Resistances, Joint International Research Laboratory of Metabolic & Developmental Sciences and School of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, PR China. 4. Peng Cheng Laboratory, Vanke Cloud City Phase I Building 8, Xili Street, Nashan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518055, PR China. 5. Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (IMBB), The University of Lahore, KM Defence Road, Lahore, Pakistan, 58810. 6. Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Tabuk, 71491, Saudi Arabia. 7. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Marine Life Sciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266003, PR China. 8. Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, AL-Azhar University, Nasr City, Cairo, 11751, Egypt. 9. Chongqing Medical and Pharmaceutical College, Chongqing, China.
Abstract
Structural proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are potential drug targets due to their role in the virus life cycle. The envelope (E) protein is one of the structural proteins; plays a critical role in virulency. However, the emergence of mutations oftenly leads to drug resistance and may also play a vital role in virus stabilization and evolution. In this study, we aimed to identify mutations in E proteins that affect the protein stability. About 0.3 million complete whole genome sequences were analyzed to screen mutations in E protein. All these mutations were subjected to stability prediction using the DynaMut server. The most common mutations that were detected at the C-terminal domain, Ser68Phe, Pro71Ser, and Leu73Phe, were examined through molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for a 100ns period. The sequence analysis shows the existence of 259 mutations in E protein. Interestingly, 16 of them were detected in the DFLV amino acid (aa) motif (aa72-aa75) that binds the host PALS1 protein. The results of root mean square deviation, fluctuations, radius of gyration, and free energy landscape show that Ser68Phe, Pro71Ser, and Leu73Phe are exhibiting a more stabilizing effect. However, a more comprehensive experimental study may be required to see the effect on virus pathogenicity. Potential antiviral drugs, and vaccines may be developed used after screening the genomic variations for better management of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Structural proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are potential drug targets due to their role in the virus life cycle. Theenvelope (E) protein is one of the structural proteins; plays a critical role in virulency. However, theemergence of mutations oftenly leads to drug resistance and may also play a vital role in virus stabilization and evolution. In this study, we aimed to identify mutations in E proteins that affect the protein stability. About 0.3 million complete whole genome sequences were analyzed to screenmutations in E protein. All thesemutations were subjected to stability prediction using the DynaMut server. Themost common mutations that were detected at the C-terminal domain, Ser68Phe, Pro71Ser, and Leu73Phe, wereexamined through molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for a 100ns period. The sequence analysis shows theexistence of 259 mutations in E protein. Interestingly, 16 of them were detected in the DFLV amino acid (aa) motif (aa72-aa75) that binds the host PALS1 protein. The results of root mean square deviation, fluctuations, radius of gyration, and freeenergy landscape show that Ser68Phe, Pro71Ser, and Leu73Phe areexhibiting a more stabilizing effect. However, a more comprehensiveexperimental study may be required to see theeffect on virus pathogenicity. Potential antiviral drugs, and vaccines may be developed used after screening the genomic variations for better management of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Recently thenewly emerged coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) remains a major public health issue since 2019. The causative agent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1] is passing through numerous evolutionary stages [2,3] and seems more fatal. The virus is rapidly spreading through respiratory droplets, affecting the important organs of the host body [2,3].Since thecoronavirus 2 (CoV-2) belongs to the formerly known family of coronaviruses, it shares close genomic similarity with SARS-CoV. TheCoV-2 contains the ssRNA genome [6]; it encodes four structural proteins such as a spike (S), an envelope (E), membrane (M), and nucleocapsid (N) [7], resulting in the coding of 16 non-structural proteins (NSPs). These structural proteins are responsible for viral replication and virion-receptor attachments and, thus, are involved in pathogenicity, viral spread, and the introduction of the virus to the cells of the host body.TheE protein is composed of 76 amino acids [8] weighing 8–12 kDa [9]. This protein has an N-terminal domain (NTD), hydrophobic domain, and C-terminal domain (CTD) [10], arranged as NTD first 1–9 amino acid (aa), the hydrophobic area, extending from 10 to 37 aa and CTD (38–75 aa) [11]. Ionic pores are formed across themembrane due to the arrangement of the hydrophobic tail region. Structurally, theE protein consists of seven alpha helices and eight loop regions. It forms a pentameric configuration (fivemolecules) with 35 alpha-helical regions and 40 looped ring regions, which are formed by the hydrophobic tail (Fig. 1
B). This pentameric configuration of the hydrophobic tail can be affected by the interactions within CTD [12]. These pores serve as ion channels that allow themovement of the virus across themembrane, enhancing its pathogenicity [13]. Emutations reduce viral pathogenicity and also stop the channel activity [14] representing an essential drug target and vaccine candidate [15].
Fig. 1
Domain organization of E proteins and the location and frequency of most common mutations. TM: transmembrane [15], NTD: N-terminal domain, CTD: C-terminal domain. (B). Pentameric representation of E proteins showing channel (C). Full-length E protein (I-TASSER, E-QHD43418) with most common mutations in the loop region.
Domain organization of E proteins and the location and frequency of most common mutations. TM: transmembrane [15], NTD: N-terminal domain, CTD: C-terminal domain. (B). Pentameric representation of E proteins showing channel (C). Full-length E protein (I-TASSER, E-QHD43418) with most common mutations in the loop region.Some novel mutations seen in theE protein sequence do not present in the already existing coronaviruses. In theCoV-2E protein sequence, arginine is mutated by isoleucine, threonine, and lysine (R69I, R69T, and R69K) at the 69th position. Moreover, in the amino acid sequence of CoV-2, serine and phenylalanine are present at 55th and 56th positions, instead of threonine and valine, respectively [16].TheSARS-CoV-2 has undergone numerous mutations in all the important targets [[17], [18], [19]]; therefore, drugs created to fight CoV-2might not very potent. In order to evaluate the drug targets for designing novel antiviral drugs against CoV-2, it is vital to screen the frequency of mutations and their effect on the thermodynamic properties of the important target proteins. This is particularly important for theeffective treatment of emerging microbes, including mutants of SARS-CoV-2.Although structural proteins of CoV-2 are important for investigating mutations, here in this study, we investigated the variations existing only in E proteins owing to their potential drug target. Very limited information and small-scale genomic data has been screened for mutations in theE protein. This is the first comprehensive study in which we screened 0.295 million complete genomes of SARS-CoV-2 for identifying variants in theE protein. Among all the genomes, 259 mutations were detected, exhibiting various degrees of thermodynamic properties.Analyzing the frequency of mutations and their effect on the thermodynamics properties of E proteins may allow the researcher to design novel inhibitors and predict the level of pathogenicity and transmission. In the current study, themost common mutations that were detected at the C-terminal (Ser68Phe, Pro71Ser, Leu73Phe) wereexhibiting more stabilizing effect on E proteins structure. First, the presence of a large number of mutations in theE protein of CoV-2may lead to the conformational changes and evolutions, resulting in therapeutic failure. Secondly, the virus may bemore fatal in near future, and therefore, antivirals against geography-specific CoV-2 strains might bemoreeffective.
Methodology
Genomic sequence retrieval
The complete genome was retrieved from the Global Science Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) (December 2019–2020) (https://www.gisaid.org/) [20]. The GISAID shared the virus data to publish results and themetadata relevant to public health scientists. This server provides all kinds of CoV-2 genomic data, including even those that have not been unpublished. We screened 0.295 genomes of CoV-2 reported worldwide for variants analysis in E proteins. The sequences were aligned with the referenceCoV-2 genome (Accession NC_045512) using the CoVsurver application (https://www.gisaid.org/epiflu-applications/covsurver-mutations-app/). The identified mutations in structural proteins of CoV-2 were separated and arranged in the form of excel sheets. The statistical analysis was performed to screen themost common variants.
Structural information
Scientists are all well aware that sharing the genomic and proteomic data of SARS-CoV-2 is important for the better management of infectious diseases in order to devise countermeasures. TheE protein structural data was retrieved from the protein data bank (PDB) [21] (PDB IDs: E = 7k3g). Some residues at the NTD (1–7aa) and CTD (39–75) aremissing in the PDB structure of theCOV-2E protein. To observe theeffect of mutations on the residues missing in the CTD and ND terminals, the full-length E protein structure was downloaded (E-QHD43418) from I-TASSER [22,23]. The chain ID in the I-TASSER structure is missing, which was added in PYMOL using the code “sele, chain'” and “alter (sele), chain = ‘A'.” The I-TASSER has already modeled the full-length proteins of CoV-2 using the NCBI reference data (NC_045512) (GenBank MN908947).
Mutation effect on E proteins’ dynamic stability
All the observed mutations were recorded and their effect on theE protein structure was computed using the DynaMut [24]. The server implemented themutation effect and also the normal modemethods that can be used to analyze the variants that affect protein stability and flexibility. This impact is measured through graph-based signatures and also as a normal mode. This method outperforming (P < 0.001) with results are also displayed in good resolution.
Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation
TheMD simulation was performed on the Desmond module (Schrodinger), as described in the previous study [23,24]. Briefly, the TIP3P model and Gromos9643a1 forefield was applied. The system was neutralized with counterions (NaCl). The cubic simple point charge (SPC) water box was applied. Two-step (NVT and NPT) energy minimization (50000 ps) till theminimization completion was continued. The ambient pressure was set at 1.013 bar and temperature 310 K for 100 ns? The thermodynamic stability of the WT (wild type) and mutants (MT) E proteins was analyzed using root means square fluctuations (RMSF) and root means square deviation (RMSD). All the simulation were repeated three time for better results. Approximately 1000 frame per simulation was run.
The Gibbs free energy
The Gibbs freeenergy (G) [27] of MTs was plotted against wild typeE protein. The G is minimized to equilibrium state of system at constant temperature and pressure which is a thermodynamic potential. Principal component analysis (PCA) is performed to recognize low modes in proteins [28,29]. PCA simplifies the complicated motion in trajectory [[30], [31], [32]]. A set z1, z2 …, zp known as principal components (PCs) were generated during PCA. Energies of sets of proteins conformations is called FreeEnergy Landscape (FEL) [33,34]. The first two components (PC1 and PC2) give the trajectories on initial two principal components of motion. G values shows the stability level of proteins [[35], [36], [37]].
Results and discussion
This is the first comprehensive study in which 0.295 million complete genomic sequences of CoV-2, which were reported worldwide in the GISAID server (from December 2019 to December 2020), were analyzed to identify variants in E proteins. A large number of non-synonymous mutations (259) were detected in the genome sequences from 48 countries (Supplementary Table S1), among which the largest number were present in isolates fromEngland (S1). This wide range of variations may project the variation level of CoV-2 strains worldwide. Previous studies [25,26] have screened 3617 and 81,818 COV-2 genomes for E protein variants, respectively. These recent studies reported 115 and 15 non-synonymous mutations, respectively, which weremainly present in the CTD.
Mutations in envelope (E) protein
Mutations in the NTD
Being the smallest structural protein (75aa) of CoV-2, all of the residues’ positions of theE protein harbored non-synonymous mutations (S1). A total of 31 non-synonymous mutations were detected in the NTD (Supplementary File S1), among which V5F (n = 39), E8D (n = 35), V5I (n = 17), and Y2H (n = 14) were common. A majority of thesemutations were detected in the isolates from the UK. The NTD helps the tail region target the Golgi complex using some of its associated elements as mutations in this region may affect its efficiency.
Mutations in the CTD
Themost frequent mutations were detected in the CTD of theE protein (68–73 aa) (Table 1
). Some of them were T91, S55F, V62F, S68F, R691, P71L, P71S, and L73F (Fig. 1). Other common mutations have been listed in the table along with their residue types and positions (Table 1 and S1). Mutations in the CTD, namely, S55F (128), V62F (129), and R69I (159) may affect the virus pathogenesis, altering the binding of theE protein to a tight junction. Themotif “DLLV” (72–75 aa) of the CTD showed somemutations that may affect thePALS1 (Protein Associated with Caenorhabditis elegans Lin-7 protein 1) at the Golgi complex, as well as CoV-2 infectivity [38,40]. ThePALS1 is a member of thepost-synaptic density protein-95/Discs Large/Zonula occludens-1 (PDZ) domain-containing proteins group that is involved in diverse cellular functions and also functions as scaffolds for signaling protein [28,29].
Table 1
Frequency of some common mutations in the CoV-2 E protein.
Accession
Wild type AA
Position
Mutated AA
Frequency
aMutation
EPI_ISL_476911
T
9
I
168
T9I
EPI_ISL_424214
S
55
F
128
S55F
EPI_ISL_538676
V
62
F
129
V62F
EPI_ISL_448073
S
68
F
b419
bS68F
EPI_ISL_452908
R
69
I
159
R69I
EPI_ISL_577907
P
71
L
158
P71L
EPI_ISL_660339
P
71
S
b264
bP71S
EPI_ISL_478788
L
73
F
b218
bL73F
Full list is available in the S1 supplementary file.
; mutations subjected to MD simulations.
Frequency of some common mutations in theCoV-2E protein.Full list is available in the S1 supplementary file.; mutations subjected to MD simulations.
Mutations in the transmembrane (TM) domain
Transmembrane variants such T9I (n = 168), F20L (n = 90), L21F (n = 84), V24 M (n = 76), and T30I (n = 72) may affect the homo pentameric configuration of theE protein [43]. TheE proteinmay also be an effective drug target as it contributes equally to the pathogenicity and cytotoxicity of the virus. It produces viroporins that are hydrophobic in nature [44]. Proline residues facilitate the targeting of the cis-Golgi complex by the hydrophobic tail present in the cytoplasm. The release of these virion particles is facilitated by the ionic gradient present in theendoplasmic reticulum and Golgi compartment through theE protein [8]. Studies on Emutants for highlighting the structural changes of the ion-channel activity behind mutations, might be very helpful for better management of COVID-19.The CTD of E proteins harbored some common mutations whose stability was predicted. The DynaMut prediction outcome of L73F (ΔΔG: −0.417 kcal/mol), P71S (ΔΔG: −0.255 kcal/mol) exert a destabilizing effect. However, T9I (ΔΔG: 0.190 kcal/mol), P71L (ΔΔG: 0.012 kcal/mol), and S68F (ΔΔG: 0.362 kcal/mol) shows a stabilizing effect (Supplementary File S1). Themost common mutations were detected at the C-terminal (Ser68Phe, Pro71Ser, and Leu73Phe) were also assessed through MD simulations, exerting a stabilizing effect on theE protein of CoV-2.
Thermodynamic properties
We analyzed the thermodynamic properties of most common variants (Ser68Phe, Pro71Ser, and Leu73Phe) present in the CTD in relation to theE structure stability in comparison with the wild type (WT).
RMSD and RMSF of WT and MTs
The RMSD graphs of then WT and MTs E proteins are shown in Fig. 2
. TheMTs S68F and P71S seemmore stable from 55ns to 100 ns, exhibiting 9 Å and 10.5 Å RMSDs, respectively. The RMSD of the WT still exhibiting fluctuations at 100 ns? Similar to the other MTs, L73F is also exhibiting stable deviations through the simulation period, with 13.7 Å to 14.5 Å RMSD. The WT exhibited 5.3 Å RMSD at the 80ns–95ns period and still seems to rise from 95ns to 100 ns?
Fig. 2
RMSD comparison of the WT and MTs E proteins of SARS-CoV-2.
RMSD comparison of the WT and MTs E proteins of SARS-CoV-2.The comparison of the WT and MTs in terms of flexibility exhibited significant variations at some positions (Fig. 3, Fig. 4
). The RMSF at the 53rd to 75th aa position exhibited a significant difference between the WT and MTs. The WTs at this position exhibited 6.89 Å (55 aa), 9.88 Å (71 aa), and 9.5 Å (75 aa); S68F demonstrated very low RMSF, below 4 Å, for themajority of the residues and 5.1 Å at 75 aa, which was significantly low as compared to the WT. Similarly, P71S also exhibited very low RMSF at CTD (5.7 Å) when compared to the WT (Fig. 3). Similar to S68F, theMT L73F also demonstrated low-level fluctuation when compared with the WT. MD simulations explore the insight dynamic changes at themolecular level [[45], [46], [47]], which might be difficult to accomplish through experimental work. Several studies have reported that any change in protein functions might be associated with RMSF [[48], [49], [50]]. Flexibility is one of the key thermodynamic characteristics that maintain the optimal functions of proteins [51]. A large change in this property may alter the function of the biomolecules.
Fig. 3
The RMSF of the WT and MTs in the E proteins of SARS-COV-2. CA: Carbon alpha. The RMSF of WT (orange) and MTs. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 4
The RMSDs of WT and MTs at different simulation periods. The WT behaves very differently at the CTD.
The RMSF of the WT and MTs in theE proteins of SARS-COV-2. CA: Carbon alpha. The RMSF of WT (orange) and MTs. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)The RMSDs of WT and MTs at different simulation periods. The WT behaves very differently at the CTD.Protein secondary structureelements (SSE) such as alpha helices and beta strands aremonitored throughout the simulation. The difference in the SSE of the WT and MTs has been highlighted in Fig. 5
at 20ns–70 ns? Themutation induced some changes in the SSE within a 100ns simulation period. Upon examining Fig. 5, some differences in the SSE of the WT (Fig. 5A) and MTs (Fig. 5B, C, D) can be seen.
Fig. 5
Comparison of the SSE of the WT and MTs in MD simulation. The plot reports SSE distribution by residue index throughout the protein structure and summarizes the SSE composition for each trajectory frame over the course of the simulation. The plot monitors each residue and its SSE assignment over a certain period of time. (A) The WT residue index and SSE along Y-axis shows differences at the 60–65ns MD simulations period; (B) S68F shows a little variation at 40–55ns; (C) P71S exhibits more variations at 45–68ns; (D) L73F also demonstrates variations when the WT is compared with P71S and S68F.
Comparison of the SSE of the WT and MTs in MD simulation. The plot reports SSE distribution by residue index throughout the protein structure and summarizes the SSE composition for each trajectory frame over the course of the simulation. The plot monitors each residue and its SSE assignment over a certain period of time. (A) The WT residue index and SSE along Y-axis shows differences at the 60–65ns MD simulations period; (B) S68F shows a little variation at 40–55ns; (C) P71Sexhibits more variations at 45–68ns; (D) L73F also demonstrates variations when the WT is compared with P71S and S68F.
Rg of WT and MTs
The degree of protein-folding stability could bemeasured through Rg. Fluctuations in Rg for a period indicate unstable folding, while a straight value reveals stable folding [[52], [53], [54], [55]]. A protein with misfolding shows variations in Rg over time (Fig. 6
). The WT and MTs exhibited variations in folding. TheMT S68Fexhibited more stable folding than the WT, whereas P71S and L73F also presented stable folding for the 18.9–50ns period (Fig. 6). TheS68FMT shows the lowest fluctuations from 21ns to 100 ns (1.3 nm). Rg is a mass-weight root mean square distance between atoms and their common center of mass. It is a vital parameter for defining dynamic stability, offering an insight mechanism of dimension and compactness of biomolecules and total protein systems. The Rg plotted for threeMTs of theCoV-2E proteins shows notable stability than that of the WT. Themutant structures show a slightly low average Rg value than the WT.
Fig. 6
Comparison of Rg of the WT and MTs E proteins. The WT (blue) exhibited a little difference in folding throughout the 100ns simulation period as compared to the MTs, showing that the folding in both types is stable. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Comparison of Rg of the WT and MTs E proteins. The WT (blue) exhibited a little difference in folding throughout the 100ns simulation period as compared to theMTs, showing that the folding in both types is stable. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Hydrogen bonding of the WT and the MTs
Most of the interactions among the atoms aremainly hydrogen bonding (HB), which assists in protein folding, stability, and is also involved in recognition. The α helix and β sheet stabilize by the HB potential between the amidenitrogen of the protein and the carbonyl oxygen of themain chain [[56], [57], [58]]. The primary forces in protein–drug interactions are HB, van der Waals, and electrostatic forces [51]. The average number of HB among the WT and MTs CoV-2E protein atoms is shown in Fig. 7
. MT S68Fexhibited fewer HB than P71S and P73F. However, both theMTs (P71S and P73F) demonstrated more HB than the WT (Fig. 7), signifying the stabilizing effect of themutation. P71Sexhibited maximum HB (295) during the first 25ns simulations. However, the number of HB in theMD simulation in the last 25ns is almost the same for the WT and MTs.
Fig. 7
Hydrogen bonding of the WT and MTs E proteins.
Hydrogen bonding of the WT and MTs E proteins.Theeffect of mutations on E proteins’ stability and flexibility has been shown in Fig. 8
. All of theMTs exhibited an increase in flexibility, which may have a positiveeffect on function. Themolecular activities are linked with the flexible regions. According to a previous investigation [59], protein requires flexibility to engage in good catalytic activity. Adding water improves flexibility, and understanding the diverse role of protein flexibility can help develop biotechnological solutions including vaccines.
Fig. 8
WT and MTs stability and flexibility.
WT and MTs stability and flexibility.MTs showed more interactions than WT. TheS68Fexhibited a different geometry due to the aromatic nature of phenylalanine substitutions. Moreover, the number of interactions in this MT seems greater than in the WT (Fig. 9
). In MT P71S, theproline has been substituted into serine, present in the active site of many enzymes. Similar to theS68F, theL73Fexhibited more interactions (Fig. 9) with surrounding residues than the WT due to its substitution into aromatic amino acid, forming morehydrogen interactions with its surrounding residues that might be instrumental in E stability.
Fig. 9
Interactions of WT and MTs residues with surrounding aa. The type of interactions of WT and MTs residues is colored-coded. S68F, P71S, and L73F MTs have been compared with their WT on the left.
Interactions of WT and MTs residues with surrounding aa. The type of interactions of WT and MTs residues is colored-coded. S68F, P71S, and L73FMTs have been compared with their WT on the left.The FEL of WT and MTs has been shown in Fig. 10
. The lowest and stableenergy state is represented by blue color. WT E protein showed more stable state that two MTs (P71S, L73F) whereas theMT S68F seems more stable than WT. The blue areas show stability while other indicate transitions in the protein conformation to attain a more favorable state. The green areas in P71S, L73F aremore prevalent that WT which shows stability next to blue regions. These result demonstrates that E proteinMTs might be useful to cause viral pathogenecity [[60], [61], [62]]. Calculating G might be important to observe the overall stability upon mutations.
Fig. 10
Gibbs free energy landscape. The scale shows the free energy values. Blue and green regions are more stable than red and yellow. MT S68F shows more stability than WT based on the free energy landscape. WT exhibited more stability than P71S and L73F. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Gibbs freeenergy landscape. The scale shows the freeenergy values. Blue and green regions aremore stable than red and yellow. MT S68F shows more stability than WT based on the freeenergy landscape. WT exhibited more stability than P71S and L73F. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Conclusion
In this comprehensive study, 259 non-synonymous mutations were detected in theE protein with different frequencies. Mutations were present in all three domains—the CTD, the NTD, and the hydrophobic domain; however, the highest frequency was detected in the first one. All of theMTs demonstrated various degrees of flexibilities and stabilities, where themajority depicted a loss in flexibility and stability. Moreover, threeMTs (S68F, P71S, and L73F) were analyzed through MD simulations and exhibited a stabilizing effect on theE protein structure. In order to evaluate the drug targets for designing a novel antiviral drug against CoV-2, it is vital to dig out the frequency of mutations and their effect on the thermodynamic properties of the selected target. This is particularly imperative for theeffective treatment of emerging microbes including SARS-CoV-2mutants. The current study will contribute significantly to the knowledge on virus stabilization and theevolutionary aspects and pathogenicity of CoV-2 infections, which might be useful for better management of COVID-19 and the development of a vaccine in thenear future.
Authors: Carmina Verdiá-Báguena; Jose L Nieto-Torres; Antonio Alcaraz; Marta L Dediego; Luis Enjuanes; Vicente M Aguilella Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2013-05-18
Authors: Nash D Rochman; Yuri I Wolf; Guilhem Faure; Pascal Mutz; Feng Zhang; Eugene V Koonin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 11.205