| Literature DB >> 35720422 |
Yusha Araf1,2,3, Abu Tayab Moin3,4, Vladimir I Timofeev5, Nairita Ahsan Faruqui3,6, Syeda Afra Saiara3, Nafisa Ahmed3,6, Md Sorwer Alam Parvez1,7, Tanjim Ishraq Rahaman3,8, Bishajit Sarkar3,9, Md Asad Ullah3,9, Mohammad Jakir Hosen1, Chunfu Zheng2,10.
Abstract
Mucormycosis is a potentially fatal illness that arises in immunocompromised people due to diabetic ketoacidosis, neutropenia, organ transplantation, and elevated serum levels of accessible iron. The sudden spread of mucormycosis in COVID-19 patients engendered massive concern worldwide. Comorbidities including diabetes, cancer, steroid-based medications, long-term ventilation, and increased ferritin serum concentration in COVID-19 patients trigger favorable fungi growth that in turn effectuate mucormycosis. The necessity of FTR1 gene-encoded ferrous permease for host iron acquisition by fungi has been found in different studies recently. Thus, targeting the transit component could be a potential solution. Unfortunately, no appropriate antifungal vaccine has been constructed as of yet. To date, mucormycosis has been treated with antiviral therapy and surgical treatment only. Thus, in this study, the FTR1 protein has been targeted to design a convenient and novel epitope-based vaccine with the help of immunoinformatics against four different virulent fungal species. Furthermore, the vaccine was constructed using 8 CTL, 2 HTL, and 1 LBL epitopes that were found to be highly antigenic, non-allergenic, non-toxic, and fully conserved among the fungi under consideration. The vaccine has very reassuring stability due to its high pI value of 9.97, conclusive of a basic range. The vaccine was then subjected to molecular docking, molecular dynamics, and immune simulation studies to confirm the biological environment's safety, efficacy, and stability. The vaccine constructs were found to be safe in addition to being effective. Finally, we used in-silico cloning to develop an effective strategy for vaccine mass production. The designed vaccine will be a potential therapeutic not only to control mucormycosis in COVID-19 patients but also be effective in general mucormycosis events. However, further in vitro, and in vivo testing is needed to confirm the vaccine's safety and efficacy in controlling fungal infections. If successful, this vaccine could provide a low-cost and effective method of preventing the spread of mucormycosis worldwide.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; FTR1; Mucormycosis; SARS-CoV-2; immunoinformatics; vaccine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720422 PMCID: PMC9204303 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.863234
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1COVID-19 and mucormycosis correlated through the iron uptake mechanism. (A) Iron dysregulation and COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 causes heightened inflammation and a pro-inflammatory cytokine storm, elevating hepcidin synthesis. The increase in hepcidin reduces the available Ferroportin and leads to intracellular iron overload, causing an increase in ferritin concentration. The result is hyper-ferritinemia. (B) Proposed pathogenic mechanisms of mucormycosis through iron uptake include the stripping of ferric ions (Fe3+) from heme groups (H), proton-mediated displacement of ferric ions from transferrin (T), and chelation of ferric irons by deferoxamine (D). The copper oxidase–iron permease (FTR1) complex transports iron across the cell membrane in all cases.
Figure 2Step-by-step procedures used in the vaccine constructing experiment.
List of the promising conformational B-cell epitopes.
| No. | Residues | Number of residues | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A:F304, A:F307, A:K310, A:R311, A:A312, A:A313, A:I314, A:R315, A:K316, A:A317, A:E318, A:A319, A:G320, A:E321, A:W322, A:D323, A:D324, A:G325, A:D326, A:E327, A:A328, A:E330, A:N331, A:Q334, A:Y335, A:G337, A:N338, A:D339, A:G340, A:E341, A:I343, A:V344, A:E345, A:D346, A:K347, A:E348, A:S349, A:D350, A:E351, A:E352, A:A353, A:N354, A:N355, A:H356, A:P357, A:K358, A:I361 | 47 | 0.765 |
| 2 | A:F36, A:N37, A:T38, A:E39, A:S40, A:P41, A:V42, A:Y43, A:K44, A:R45, A:R47, A:N48, A:Q49, A:W51, A:I52, A:V118, A:K119, A:A121, A:K122, A:A123, A:M124, A:Q125, A:K126, A:S127, A:N128, A:S129, A:E130, A:K131, A:S132, A:S133, A:F134, A:K135, A:E136, A:K137, A:L138, A:Q139, A:K140 | 37 | 0.735 |
| 3 | A:A66, A:A67, A:I69, A:A70, A:V71, A:Y72, A:Y73, A:T74, A:V75, A:L76, A:N77, A:D78, A:L79, A:W80, A:G81, A:N82, A:S83, A:I86, A:E228, A:Q229, A:N230, A:A231, A:W232, A:N233, A:Q234, A:V235, A:I236, A:G237, A:G238, A:E239, A:A240, A:A241, A:D242, A:V243, A:I244, A:S245, A:Y246, A:V248, A:S249, A:T250, A:A251, A:V252, A:W253, A:H254, A:V255, A:S256, A:W257, A:G258, A:D259, A:P260, A:E261, A:A262, A:N263, A:N264, A:D265, A:T266, A:S267, A:G268, A:N280, A:N281, A:T282, A:A283, A:T284, A:Y285, A:I289 | 65 | 0.732 |
| 4 | A:M1, A:S2, A:Q3, A:D4, A:L5, A:F6, A:S166, A:L167, A:G168, A:I169, A:Q170, A:G171, A:K172, A:S173, A:I174, A:P175, A:I176, A:I179, A:M180 | 19 | 0.724 |
| 5 | A: F59, A: L62, A: C63 | 3 | 0.61 |
Promising CTL epitopes with their scores (>1.000), antigenicity, allergenicity toxicity, and conservancy.
| HLA Supertype | Epitopes | Scores (>1.000) | Antigenicity (Threshold >0.5) | Allergenicity | Toxicity | Conservancy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2 | FIGGVSLGI | 1.0756 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-toxin | 100% |
| A3 | RMQEKWKVK | 1.1218 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-toxin | 100% |
| A24 | IQLRWFFVF | 1.5956 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-toxin | 100% |
| B27 | LRWFFVFST | 1.0815 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-toxin | 100% |
| B39 | MQEKWKVKL | 1.5459 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-toxin | 100% |
| B44 | RETTEAAII | 1.0679 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-toxin | 100% |
| B62 | IGAAFIAVY | 1.2503 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-toxin | 100% |
Promising HTL epitopes with their percentile rank, antigenicity, allergenicity, toxicity, conservancy, and cytokine inducing ability (IFN-gamma, IL-4, and IL-10).
| Peptide | Allele | Percentile Rank (<1.00) | Antigenicity (>0,5) | Allergenicity | Toxicity | Conservancy | IFN-gamma inducing capability | IL-4 inducing capability | IL-10 inducing capability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFIAVYYTVLNDLWG | HLA-DPA1*02:01/DPB1*01:01 | 0.66 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-Toxin | 100% | Inducer (Score: 0.14286936) | Inducer (Score: 0.38) | Inducer (Score: 0.423549064759) |
| FIAVYYTVLNDLWGN | HLA-DPA1*02:01/DPB1*01:01 | 0.78 | Antigen | Non-allergen | Non-Toxin | 100% | Inducer (Score: 0.0092719089) | Inducer (Score: 0.38) | Inducer (Score: 0.327536699979) |
Figure 3The CTL, HTL, and LBL epitopes were fully conserved across all the chosen virulent fungi and satisfied all the selection criteria: antigenicity, allergenicity, non-toxic, cytokine inducing ability. The red boxes indicate the epitopes.
Figure 4Schematic representation of the vaccine constructs with its linkers (EAAAK, AAY, GPGPG, KK), adjuvant (RS09 and human beta-defensin-3), PADRE, and TAT sequence, and epitopes (CTL, HTL, LBL) in a sequential manner.
Figure 5Refinement and validation of the modeled tertiary structure of BFV. (A) represents the refined 3D structure of BFV. (B) displays the Ramachandran plots of refining the 3D structure of BFV using the SWISS-MODEL Workspace. Finally, (C) depicts the Z-Score plot for the 3D structure of BFV, which contains the z-scores of all experimental protein chains determined by NMR spectroscopy (dark blue) and X-ray crystallography (light blue).
Figure 6The interactions of the BFV with several TLRs using the Discovery Studio Visualizer.
Figure 7Three-dimensional representation of conformational B cell epitopes of BFV. In A-G, the bulk of the polyprotein is represented in grey sticks, and the yellow surfaces represent the conformational B cell epitopes.
Figure 8Results of the (A) RMSD, (B) RMSF and, (C) radius of gyration analyses of the three vaccine-TLR docked complexes.
Figure 9C-IMMSIMM representation of the immune simulation of BFV. (A) The immunoglobulin and immunocomplex response to BEV administration (lines colored in black) and the subclasses are depicted by colored lines, (B) Increment in the B-cell population throughout the three injections, (C) Rise in the B-cell population per state throughout vaccination, (D) Surge in the plasma B-cell population throughout the injections, (E) Rise in the helper T-cell population throughout the three injections, (F) Elevation in the helper T-cell population per state throughout the vaccination, (G) Enhancement in the cytotoxic T lymphocyte population throughout the injections, (H) Augmentation in the active cytotoxic T lymphocyte population per state throughout vaccination, (I) Increment in the active dendritic cell population per state throughout the three injections, (J) Increase in the macrophage population per state over the course of the injections, (K) Surge in the concentrations of different types of cytokines throughout the three injections.
Figure 10Recombinant pETite vector plasmid with the BFV vaccine inserted (marked in red color) between the XhoI and BamHI restriction enzyme sites.