| Literature DB >> 35886259 |
Tehniyat Rida1, Sajjad Ahmad1, Asad Ullah1, Saba Ismail2, Muhammad Tahir Ul Qamar3, Zobia Afsheen1, Muhammad Khurram4, Muhammad Saqib Ishaq1, Ali G Alkhathami5, Eid A Alatawi6, Faris Alrumaihi7, Khaled S Allemailem7.
Abstract
Porphyromonas gingivalis is a Gram-negative anaerobic bacterium, mainly present in the oral cavity and causes periodontal infections. Currently, no licensed vaccine is available against P. gingivalis and other oral bacterial pathogens. To develop a vaccine against P. gingivalis, herein, we applied a bacterial pan-genome analysis (BPGA) on the bacterial genomes that retrieved a total number of 4908 core proteins, which were further utilized for the identification of good vaccine candidates. After several vaccine candidacy analyses, three proteins, namely lytic transglycosylase domain-containing protein, FKBP-type peptidyl-propyl cis-trans isomerase and superoxide dismutase, were shortlisted for epitopes prediction. In the epitopes prediction phase, different types of B and T-cell epitopes were predicted and only those with an antigenic, immunogenic, non-allergenic, and non-toxic profile were selected. Moreover, all the predicted epitopes were joined with each other to make a multi-epitopes vaccine construct, which was linked further to the cholera toxin B-subunit to enhance the antigenicity of the vaccine. For downward analysis, a three dimensional structure of the designed vaccine was modeled. The modeled structure was checked for binding potency with major histocompatibility complex I (MHC-I), major histocompatibility complex II (MHC-II), and Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR-4) immune cell receptors which revealed that the designed vaccine performed proper binding with respect to immune cell receptors. Additionally, the binding efficacy of the vaccine was validated through a molecular dynamic simulation that interpreted strong intermolecular vaccine-receptor binding and confirmed the exposed situation of vaccine epitopes to the host immune system. In conclusion, the study suggested that the model vaccine construct has the potency to generate protective host immune responses and that it might be a good vaccine candidate for experimental in vivo and in vitro studies.Entities:
Keywords: Porphyromonas gingivalis; epitope vaccine; immunoinformatics; molecular dynamics simulations; pan-genomics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886259 PMCID: PMC9320593 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148408
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the methodology used to design a multi-epitopes vaccine construct against P. gingivalis.
Different statistics of P. gingivalis completely sequence strains.
| Organism Name | Strain | Size (Mb) | GC% |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ATCC 33277 | 2.35 | 48.4 |
|
| TDC60 | 2.34 | 48.3 |
|
| W83 | 2.34 | 48.3 |
Figure 2(A) Pan-core plot of P. gingivalis genomes. (B) Pan-phylogeny tree of P. gingivalis genomes.
Figure 3(A) Number of total sub cellular localized, core, redundant and non-redundant proteins, (B) Number of extracellular, periplasmic and outer membrane proteins.
Virulent proteins identified from the set of exposed proteins.
| Protein ID | Bit Score | Sequence Identity |
|---|---|---|
| Outer membrane | ||
| >core/451/1/Org1_Gene734 | 117 | 35% |
| >core/207/1/Org1_Gene488 | 1303 | 99% |
| Extracellular membrane | ||
| >core/12/1/Org1_Gene1814 | 208 | 39% |
| Periplasmic membrane | ||
| >core/1384/1/Org1_Gene274 | 213 | 53% |
| >core/351/1/Org1_Gene1345 | 281 | 39% |
| >core/1029/1/Org1_Gene254 | 112 | 36% |
Different physicochemical analysis of virulent proteins. Transmembrane helices (T.M.H), molecular weight (M.W), theoretical (T.PI), and instability index (I.I).
| Vaccine Target | T.M.H | Physiochemical Properties | Human Blast | Antigenicity | Allergenicity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extracellular membrane | HMMTOP | TMHMM | M.W | T.PI | (I.I) | |||
| >core/12/1/Org1_Gene1814 | 1 | 0 | 149.58 | 5.13 | 25.75 | Non-Similar | 0.42 | Non-allergen |
| Outer membrane | ||||||||
| >core/207/1/Org1_Gene488 | 5 | 0 | 73.12 | 8.9 | 8.9 | Non-similar | 0.54 | Non-allergen |
| >core/451/1/Org1_Gene734 | 0 | 0 | 50.89 | 9.72 | 9.72 | Non-similar | 0.60 | |
| Periplasmic membrane | ||||||||
| >core/351/1/Org1_Gene1345 | 2 | 1 | 52.79 | 6.43 | 19.98 | −0.092 | 0.59 | Non-allergen |
| >core/1029/1/Org1_Gene254 | 1 | 0 | 30.28 | 6.65 | 23.64 | Non-similar | 0.47 | Non-allergen |
| >core/1384/1/Org1_Gene274 | 0 | 0 | 21.50 | 5.97 | 19.27 | Non-Similar | 0.50 | Non-allergen |
Homology check analysis of vaccine targets against selected probiotic bacterial species.
| S.NO | Shortlisted Proteins |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | >core/451/1/Org1_Gene734 | No Similarity Found | |||
| 2 | >core/1029/1/Org1_Gene254 | ||||
| 3 | >core/1384/1/Org1_Gene274 | ||||
Shortlisted epitopes after MHC-Pred, antigenicity, allergenicity, solubility, and toxin-pred analysis.
| Selected Epitopes | DRB*01 01 IC50 Score | Antigenicity | Allergenicity | Solubility | Toxin-Pred |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KLYTEERRR | 12.11 | 0.1368 | Non-allergen | Good water soluble | Non-toxin |
| TINSLVDER | 9.95 | 0.6485 | |||
| EICAGETGV | 93.76 | 0.8637 | |||
| EICAGETGV | 93.76 | 0.8637 | |||
| IEHEICAGE | 52.48 | 0.6314 | |||
| QLLNPQYKR | 10.26 | 0.574 | |||
| ELQLLNPQY | 19.54 | 1.2269 | |||
| GVSNDELQL | 27.35 | 1.3654 | |||
| DLEASVSDF | 17.14 | 0.687 |
Figure 4Schematic diagram of the vaccine construct. The yellow color shows the linker (GPGPG) which is used to link selected epitopes. The red color represents the adjuvant (cholera toxin B-Subunit) while the blue color represents EAAAK (linker).
Figure 5The 3D structure of vaccine construct representing GPGPG linkers, cholera toxin B subunit, EAAAK linker, and vaccine epitopes.
Sequence number (S.N), Chi value, Energy, and sum B-Factors of amino acid (A.A).
| S. N | A. A | Sequence Number | A. A | Chi3 | Energy | Sum B-Factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Phe | 34 | His | 103.11 | 4.15 | 0 |
| 57 | Glu | 69 | Phe | 111.41 | 7.45 | 0 |
| 74 | Pro | 77 | Gln | 117.49 | 3.97 | 0 |
| 104 | Glu | 110 | Asn | 94.29 | 2.09 | 0 |
| 104 | Glu | 113 | Thr | 98.57 | 4.81 | 0 |
| 104 | Glu | 114 | Pro | 89.56 | 4.62 | 0 |
| 150 | Asp | 154 | Pro | 84.4 | 4.89 | 0 |
Figure 6(A) Wild and (B) mutated structure of vaccine construct. The introduction of disulfide bonds is shown by yellow bands in a mutated structure.
FireDock solutions of MHC-I-vaccine. KJ·m−1 is the unit of energy for each term given below.
| Rank | Solution Number | Global Energy | Attractive van der Waals | Repulsive van der Waals | Atomic Contact Energy | Hydrogen Bonds Energy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | −13.83 | −7.21 | 2.90 | −5.95 | −0.81 |
| 2 | 9 | −5.42 | −32.42 | 25.47 | 10.50 | −1.38 |
| 3 | 1 | 1.38 | −0.17 | 0.00 | 0.37 | 0.00 |
| 4 | 7 | 15.35 | −0.04 | 0.00 | 0.45 | 0.00 |
| 5 | 2 | 28.20 | −7.73 | 6.54 | 6.57 | −0.93 |
| 6 | 3 | 39.32 | −11.69 | 46.34 | 4.65 | −2.39 |
| 7 | 6 | 62.01 | −21.28 | 93.15 | 6.42 | −5.06 |
| 8 | 4 | 86.39 | −25.68 | 125.90 | 7.34 | −3.11 |
| 9 | 10 | 236.35 | −25.31 | 300.30 | 5.74 | −2.77 |
| 10 | 8 | 1229.01 | −57.59 | 1598.19 | 3.99 | −5.68 |
FireDock solutions of MHC-II-vaccine. KJ·m−1 is the unit of energy for each term given below.
| Rank | Solution Number | Global Energy | Attractive van der Waals | Repulsive van der Waals | Atomic Contact Energy | Hydrogen Bonds Energy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 11.10 | −1.42 | 0.26 | −0.41 | 0.00 |
| 2 | 3 | 77.74 | −20.90 | 84.35 | 16.05 | −1.80 |
| 3 | 8 | 275.98 | −34.08 | 352.40 | 8.64 | −1.46 |
| 4 | 9 | 283.33 | −25.69 | 372.45 | 18.43 | −3.55 |
| 5 | 7 | 515.10 | −9.49 | 643.79 | 3.88 | −0.66 |
| 6 | 5 | 2625.03 | −43.38 | 3325.36 | 13.08 | −3.76 |
| 7 | 4 | 3591.01 | −54.69 | 4575.96 | 3.90 | −2.12 |
| 8 | 10 | 4292.57 | −74.36 | 5482.30 | 5.14 | −10.62 |
| 9 | 6 | 5698.37 | −73.32 | 7235.58 | 12.17 | −7.72 |
| 10 | 1 | 6855.32 | −82.75 | 8713.45 | 8.65 | −11.19 |
FireDock solutions of TLR-4-vaccine. KJ·m−1 is the unit of energy for each term given below.
| Rank | Solution Number | Global Energy | Attractive van der Waals | Repulsive van der Waals | Atomic Contact Energy | Hydrogen Bonds Energy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9 | −13.10 | −25.20 | 9.57 | 11.76 | −3.90 |
| 2 | 10 | 5.35 | −0.18 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
| 3 | 1 | 79.08 | −35.14 | 152.47 | 2.38 | −3.03 |
| 4 | 3 | 998.05 | −36.87 | 1285.61 | 20.01 | −3.89 |
| 5 | 5 | 1020.25 | −34.41 | 1304.89 | 21.14 | −9.75 |
| 6 | 2 | 3071.74 | −70.38 | 3963.53 | 11.31 | −10.56 |
| 7 | 7 | 3176.30 | −74.94 | 4102.83 | 14.27 | −10.73 |
| 8 | 8 | 4986.99 | −83.86 | 6372.21 | 10.54 | −11.68 |
| 9 | 6 | 5724.53 | −49.93 | 7242.80 | 0.76 | −12.72 |
| 10 | 4 | 11,424.45 | −116.65 | 14,451.06 | 29.22 | −14.28 |
Figure 7(A) Docked conformation of the vaccine with MHC-I molecule (B) Vaccine with MHC-II molecule (C) Vaccine with and to TLR-4 molecule.
Interacting residues of receptors with vaccine molecule.
| Vaccine Complex | Interactive Residues |
|---|---|
| MHC-I | Ala128, Ala135, Arg157, Arg181, Arg51, Asn155, Asp76, Asp129, Asp 83, Asp238, Glu128, Glu148, Glu154, Gln120, Gly79, His151, Leu23, Lys64, Lys 104, Lys144, Lys197, Phe22, Phe152, Pro50, Ser207, Ser132, Thr240, Thr240, Val9, Val152, |
| MHC-II | Arg44, Asn19, Asp66, Arg189, Cys174, Glu4, Glu10, Glu22, Glu187, Glu214, Gln10, Gln92, Gln174, Gly20, Leu8, Leu11, Leu45, Leu215, Lys197, Lys93, Pro183, Pro124, Pro142, Ser182, Ser126, Thr185,Thr100, Lys98, Thr21, Thr172, Tyr83,Thr181, Val99, Val91,Val86 |
| TLR-4 | Asp428, Asn464, Asn464, Asn6, Asn86, Arg606, Cys542, Leu485, Gln588,Gln588, Gln484, Gln510, Glu136, Glu509, Glu605, Glu485, Gly183, His529, His555, His557, Len462, Lys 4, Lys244, Lys560, Leu87, Phe228, Phe 463, Phe487, Phe538, Pro88, Pro489, Ser569, Tyr79, Thr548, Thr584, Val461 |
Figure 8Simulation trajectories analysis. RMSD (A), RMSF (B) and RoG (C). The figures were generated using XMGRACE software.
Different binding free energies between vaccine and receptors. All values are given in kcal/mol.
| Energy Parameter | TLR-4-Vaccine Complex | MHC-I-Vaccine Complex | MHC-II-Vaccine Complex |
|---|---|---|---|
| MM-GBSA | |||
| VDWAALS | −90.14 | −80.96 | −70.46 |
| EEL | −85.88 | −59.00 | −42.26 |
| Delta G gas | −176.02 | −139.96 | −112.72 |
| Delta G solv | 40.29 | 38.64 | 36.55 |
| Delta Total | −135.73 | −101.32 | −76.17 |
| MM-PBSA | |||
| VDWAALS | −90.14 | −80.96 | −70.46 |
| EEL | −85.88 | −59.00 | −42.26 |
| Delta G gas | −176.02 | −139.96 | −112.72 |
| Delta G solv | 43.16 | 39.87 | 42.59 |
| Delta Total | −132.86 | −100.09 | −70.13 |
VDWAALS (van der Waals), EEL (electrostatic), Delta G gas (net gas phase energy), Delta G Solv (net solvation energy), Delta Total (net energy of the system).
Figure 9(A) The various types immunoglobulins, and the immunocomplexes. (B) The concentration of cytokines and interleukins in response to the vaccine. The inner plot box shows danger signal together with leukocyte growth factor IL.