The COVID-19 pandemic was declared due to the spread of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Viral infection is caused by the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) and the human ACE2 receptor (hACE2). Previous computational studies have identified repurposed small molecules that target the RBD, but very few have screened drugs in the RBD–hACE2 interface. When studies focus solely on the binding affinity between the drug and the RBD, they ignore the effect of hACE2, resulting in an incomplete analysis. We screened ACE inhibitors and previously identified SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors for binding to the RBD—hACE2 interface, and then conducted 500 ns of unrestrained molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of fosinopril, fosinoprilat, lisinopril, emodin, diquafosol, and physcion bound to the interface to assess the binding characteristics of these ligands. Based on MM-GBSA analysis, all six ligands bind favorably in the interface and inhibit the RBD–hACE2 interaction. However, when we repeat our simulation by first binding the drug to the RBD before interacting with hACE2, we find that fosinopril, fosinoprilat, and lisinopril result in a strongly interacting trimeric complex (RBD-drug-hACE2). Hydrogen bonding and pairwise decomposition analyses further suggest that fosinopril is the best RBD inhibitor. However, when lisinopril is bound, it stabilizes the trimeric complex and, therefore, is not an ideal potential drug candidate. Overall, these results reveal important atomistic interactions critical to the binding of the RBD to hACE2 and highlight the significance of including all protein partners in the evaluation of a potential drug candidate.
- Award ID(s):
- 2030459
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10293083
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Volume:
- 118
- Issue:
- 19
- ISSN:
- 0027-8424
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e2025581118
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
-
Sugden, Bill (Ed.)The scientific community is focused on developing antiviral therapies to mitigate the impacts of the ongoing novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. This will be facilitated by improved understanding of viral dynamics within infected hosts. Here, using a mathematical model in combination with published viral load data, we compare within-host viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 with analogous dynamics of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. Our quantitative analyses using a mathematical model revealed that the within-host reproduction number at symptom onset of SARS-CoV-2 was statistically significantly larger than that of MERS-CoV and similar to that of SARS-CoV. In addition, the time from symptom onset to the viral load peak for SARS-CoV-2 infection was shorter than those of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. These findings suggest the difficulty of controlling SARS-CoV-2 infection by antivirals. We further used the viral dynamics model to predict the efficacy of potential antiviral drugs that have different modes of action. The efficacy was measured by the reduction in the viral load area under the curve (AUC). Our results indicate that therapies that block de novo infection or virus production are likely to be effective if and only if initiated before the viral load peak (which appears 2–3 days after symptom onset), but therapies that promote cytotoxicity of infected cells are likely to have effects with less sensitivity to the timing of treatment initiation. Furthermore, combining a therapy that promotes cytotoxicity and one that blocks de novo infection or virus production synergistically reduces the AUC with early treatment. Our unique modeling approach provides insights into the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 and may be useful for development of antiviral therapies.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract SARS‐CoV‐2 is the coronavirus responsible for the COVID‐19 pandemic. Proteases are central to the infection process of SARS‐CoV‐2. Cleavage of the spike protein on the virus's capsid causes the conformational change that leads to membrane fusion and viral entry into the target cell. Since inhibition of one protease, even the dominant protease like TMPRSS2, may not be sufficient to block SARS‐CoV‐2 entry into cells, other proteases that may play an activating role and hydrolyze the spike protein must be identified. We identified amino acid sequences in all regions of spike protein, including the S1/S2 region critical for activation and viral entry, that are susceptible to cleavage by furin and cathepsins B, K, L, S, and V using PACMANS, a computational platform that identifies and ranks preferred sites of proteolytic cleavage on substrates, and verified with molecular docking analysis and immunoblotting to determine if binding of these proteases can occur on the spike protein that were identified as possible cleavage sites. Together, this study highlights cathepsins B, K, L, S, and V for consideration in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and presents methodologies by which other proteases can be screened to determine a role in viral entry. This highlights additional proteases to be considered in COVID‐19 studies, particularly regarding exacerbated damage in inflammatory preconditions where these proteases are generally upregulated.
-
more » « less
Abstract STUDY QUESTION To what extent is preconception maternal or paternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination associated with miscarriage incidence?
SUMMARY ANSWER COVID-19 vaccination in either partner at any time before conception is not associated with an increased rate of miscarriage.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Several observational studies have evaluated the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and found no association with miscarriage, though no study prospectively evaluated the risk of early miscarriage (gestational weeks [GW] <8) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, no study has evaluated the role of preconception vaccination in both male and female partners.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An Internet-based, prospective preconception cohort study of couples residing in the USA and Canada. We analyzed data from 1815 female participants who conceived during December 2020–November 2022, including 1570 couples with data on male partner vaccination.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Eligible female participants were aged 21–45 years and were trying to conceive without use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Female participants completed questionnaires at baseline, every 8 weeks until pregnancy, and during early and late pregnancy; they could also invite their male partners to complete a baseline questionnaire. We collected data on COVID-19 vaccination (brand and date of doses), history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes/no and date of positive test), potential confounders (demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics), and pregnancy status on all questionnaires. Vaccination status was categorized as never (0 doses before conception), ever (≥1 dose before conception), having a full primary sequence before conception, and completing the full primary sequence ≤3 months before conception. These categories were not mutually exclusive. Participants were followed up from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss to follow-up, 20 weeks’ gestation), whichever occurred first. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for miscarriage and corresponding 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models with GW as the time scale. We used propensity score fine stratification weights to adjust for confounding.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Among 1815 eligible female participants, 75% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the time of conception. Almost one-quarter of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 75% of miscarriages occurred <8 weeks’ gestation. The propensity score-weighted IRR comparing female participants who received at least one dose any time before conception versus those who had not been vaccinated was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.14). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of either early miscarriage (GW: <8) or late miscarriage (GW: 8–19). There was no indication of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with male partner vaccination (IRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.44).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The present study relied on self-reported vaccination status and infection history. Thus, there may be some non-differential misclassification of exposure status. While misclassification of miscarriage is also possible, the preconception cohort design and high prevalence of home pregnancy testing in this cohort reduced the potential for under-ascertainment of miscarriage. As in all observational studies, residual or unmeasured confounding is possible.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the first study to evaluate prospectively the relation between preconception COVID-19 vaccination in both partners and miscarriage, with more complete ascertainment of early miscarriages than earlier studies of vaccination. The findings are informative for individuals planning a pregnancy and their healthcare providers.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Health [R01-HD086742 (PI: L.A.W.); R01-HD105863S1 (PI: L.A.W. and M.L.E.)], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R03-AI154544; PI: A.K.R.), and the National Science Foundation (NSF-1914792; PI: L.A.W.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. She also receives in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (Clearblue home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility apps). M.L.E. received consulting fees from Ro, Hannah, Dadi, VSeat, and Underdog, holds stock in Ro, Hannah, Dadi, and Underdog, is a past president of SSMR, and is a board member of SMRU. K.F.H. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this study. S.H.-D. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from Takeda, unrelated to this study, and a methods consultant for UCB and Roche for unrelated drugs. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
-
Abstract Background Despite the development of safe and effective vaccines, effective treatments for COVID-19 disease are still urgently needed. Several antiviral drugs have shown to be effective in reducing progression of COVID-19 disease. Methods In the present work, we use an agent-based mathematical model to assess the potential population impact of the use of antiviral treatments in four countries with different demographic structure and current levels of vaccination coverage: Kenya, Mexico, United States (US) and Belgium. We analyzed antiviral effects on reducing hospitalization and death, and potential antiviral effects on reducing transmission. For each country, we varied daily treatment initiation rate (DTIR) and antiviral effect in reducing transmission (AVT). Results Irrespective of location and AVT, widespread antiviral treatment of symptomatic adult infections (20% DTIR) prevented the majority of COVID-19 deaths, and recruiting 6% of all adult symptomatic infections daily reduced mortality by over 20% in all countries. Furthermore, our model projected that targeting antiviral treatment to the oldest age group (65 years old and older, DTIR of 20%) can prevent over 30% of deaths. Our results suggest that early antiviral treatment (as soon as possible after inception of infection) is needed to mitigate transmission, preventing 50% more infections compared to late treatment (started 3 to 5 days after symptoms onset). Our results highlight the synergistic effect of vaccination and antiviral treatment: as the vaccination rate increases, antivirals have a larger relative impact on population transmission. Finally, our model projects that even in highly vaccinated populations, adding antiviral treatment can be extremely helpful to mitigate COVID-19 deaths. Conclusions These results suggest that antiviral treatments can become a strategic tool that, in combination with vaccination, can significantly reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths and can help control SARS-CoV-2 transmission.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025581118
