The human coronavirus HCoV‐229E S‐protein structure and receptor binding

  1. Zhijie Li
  2. Aidan C A Tomlinson
  3. Alan H M Wong
  4. Dongxia Zhou
  5. Marc Desforges
  6. Pierre J Talbot
  7. Samir Benlekbir
  8. John L Rubinstein
  9. James M Rini  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Toronto, Canada
  2. INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université du Québec, Canada
  3. The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Canada

Abstract

The coronavirus S-protein mediates receptor binding and fusion of the viral and host cell membranes. In HCoV-229E, its receptor binding domain (RBD) shows extensive sequence variation but how S-protein function is maintained is not understood. Reported are the X-ray crystal structures of Class III-V RBDs in complex with human aminopeptidase N (hAPN), as well as the electron cryomicroscopy structure of the 229E S-protein. The structures show that common core interactions define the specificity for hAPN and that the peripheral RBD sequence variation is accommodated by loop plasticity. The results provide insight into immune evasion and the cross-species transmission of 229E and related coronaviruses. We also find that the 229E S-protein can expose a portion of its helical core to solvent. This is undoubtedly facilitated by hydrophilic subunit interfaces that we show are conserved among coronaviruses. These interfaces likely play a role in the S-protein conformational changes associated with membrane fusion.

Data availability

The X-ray diffraction data and X-ray crystal structures have been deposited in PDB under accession codes 6U7E, 6U7F and 6U7G. The cryo-EM map has been deposited in EMDB under accession code EMD-20668. The cryo-EM structure has been deposited in PDB under accession code 6U7H.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Zhijie Li

    Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9283-6072
  2. Aidan C A Tomlinson

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alan H M Wong

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dongxia Zhou

    Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Marc Desforges

    Laboratory of Neuroimmunovirology, INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université du Québec, Laval, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Pierre J Talbot

    Laboratory of Neuroimmunovirology, INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université du Québec, Laval, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Samir Benlekbir

    Molecular Medicine Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. John L Rubinstein

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0566-2209
  9. James M Rini

    Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    For correspondence
    james.rini@utoronto.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0952-2409

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

  • James M Rini

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

  • John L Rubinstein

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

  • Pierre J Talbot

Canada Research Chairs

  • John L Rubinstein

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2019, Li et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 24,019
    views
  • 1,787
    downloads
  • 154
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Zhijie Li
  2. Aidan C A Tomlinson
  3. Alan H M Wong
  4. Dongxia Zhou
  5. Marc Desforges
  6. Pierre J Talbot
  7. Samir Benlekbir
  8. John L Rubinstein
  9. James M Rini
(2019)
The human coronavirus HCoV‐229E S‐protein structure and receptor binding
eLife 8:e51230.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51230

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51230

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Marius Landau, Sherif Elsabbagh ... Joachim E Schultz
    Research Article

    The biosynthesis of cyclic 3′,5′-adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) by mammalian membrane-bound adenylyl cyclases (mACs) is predominantly regulated by G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Up to now the two hexahelical transmembrane domains of mACs were considered to fix the enzyme to membranes. Here, we show that the transmembrane domains serve in addition as signal receptors and transmitters of lipid signals that control Gsα-stimulated mAC activities. We identify aliphatic fatty acids and anandamide as receptor ligands of mAC isoforms 1–7 and 9. The ligands enhance (mAC isoforms 2, 3, 7, and 9) or attenuate (isoforms 1, 4, 5, and 6) Gsα-stimulated mAC activities in vitro and in vivo. Substitution of the stimulatory membrane receptor of mAC3 by the inhibitory receptor of mAC5 results in a ligand inhibited mAC5–mAC3 chimera. Thus, we discovered a new class of membrane receptors in which two signaling modalities are at a crossing, direct tonic lipid and indirect phasic GPCR–Gsα signaling regulating the biosynthesis of cAMP.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Shraddha KC, Kenny H Nguyen ... Thomas C Boothby
    Research Article

    The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.