Some mechanistic underpinnings of molecular adaptations of SARS-COV-2 spike protein by integrating candidate adaptive polymorphisms with protein dynamics

eLife assessment

This important study investigates various variants of the SARS-COV-2 spike protein using established computational methods, complemented by experimental validation efforts. The evidence, bolstered by an evolutionary approach and protein dynamics, is solid. Placing this research in the broader context of the field could further enrich the article. It will interest biophysicists focused on allostery and protein evolution.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92063.3.sa0

Significance of the findings:

Important: Findings that have theoretical or practical implications beyond a single subfield

Landmark
Fundamental
Important
Valuable
Useful

Strength of evidence:

Solid: Methods, data and analyses broadly support the claims with only minor weaknesses

Exceptional
Compelling
Convincing
Solid
Incomplete
Inadequate

During the peer-review process the editor and reviewers write an eLife Assessment that summarises the significance of the findings reported in the article (on a scale ranging from landmark to useful) and the strength of the evidence (on a scale ranging from exceptional to inadequate). Learn more about eLife Assessments

Abstract
Introduction
Results and discussion
Methods
Data availability
References
Article and author information
Metrics

Abstract

We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.

Introduction

Since 2019, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in humans has been characterized by the spread of mutations, many notably found within the spike (S) glycoprotein. The S protein is directly related to the human immune response to COVID-19 and, as such, has been one of the most studied and targeted proteins in SARS-CoV-2 research (Shang et al., 2020; Harvey et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 2022; Carabelli et al., 2023; Markov et al., 2023). Subsequently, research into the biophysical properties and mutational patterns associated with S protein evolution not only remains critical to understanding the pandemic but also emerges as a useful system to understand the mechanics of molecular adaptation within viruses.

For successful infection of a human host, the S glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 binds to the human ACE2 (hACE2) receptor through its receptor-binding domain (RBD). Evidence indicates that fine-tuning S protein interactions with hACE2 significantly affects viral reproduction (Rehman et al., 2020; Saputri et al., 2020; Rochman et al., 2021). Previous evolutionary studies show a complex network of interactions among mutated residues (Changeux and Edelstein, 2005; Doshi et al., 2016; O’Rourke et al., 2016; Mishra and Jernigan, 2018). Therefore, there has been a vast effort to uncover which mutations are important steps of adaptation for the S protein (Cagliani et al., 2020; Damas et al., 2020; Singh and Yi, 2021; Kistler et al., 2022; Maher et al., 2022; Neher, 2022). In particular, a significant aspect of many such studies was a focus on understanding adaptive mutations of SARS-CoV-2 that contributed to the leap to human hosts (Cagliani et al., 2020; Damas et al., 2020; Singh and Yi, 2021; Starr et al., 2022c). This is because SARS-CoV-2 has continuously mutated since its early detection (Kistler et al., 2022), causing the emergence of CDC-designated ‘variants of concern’ (VOCs) that may be driven by an accelerated substitution rate (Tay et al., 2022).

Predicting how new mutations impact the biophysical properties of the S protein remains a challenge, let alone explaining their complex interactions with one another and how they might affect hACE2 binding; many factors affect hACE2 interactions. Binding affinity with hACE2 can be enhanced directly through stronger receptor interactions or mediated through changes in RBD opening (Teruel et al., 2021b; Zhang et al., 2021; Díaz-Salinas et al., 2022). The RBD exhibits both ‘closed’ and ‘open’ conformational states. In the closed state, the RBD is shielded from receptor binding. In the open state, the RBD is accessible for hACE2 binding (Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016; Gur et al., 2020; Henderson et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2020). While some mutations may affect the transition between these states (Henderson et al., 2020; Yurkovetskiy et al., 2020; Gobeil et al., 2021a; Sztain et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Shoemark et al., 2022), other mutations may allosterically regulate RBD openings through Furin cleavage site (residue ID range: 681–695) interactions to regulate hACE2 binding (Deng et al., 2021; Gobeil et al., 2021b; Khan et al., 2021; Laiton-Donato et al., 2021).

Moreover, as new mutations accumulate, culminating in the emergence of a new VOC, these mutations must occur on varied sequence backgrounds containing neutral, nearly-neutral, and adaptive mutations. While many studies have explored the impacts of individual mutations, VOCs result in a substantial difference in protein function compared to their individual effects (Moulana et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022c; Moulana et al., 2023; Witte et al., 2023). Here we integrate an evolutionary approach with protein dynamics analysis to address the fundamental mechanisms of mutations dictating VOCs and the impact of their epistatic interaction on the function of the S protein. Many earlier studies have combined phylogeny and evolutionary theory to identify adaptive mutations and analyze how the viral sequence has changed over time (Frost et al., 2018; Boni et al., 2020; Cagliani et al., 2020; Damas et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020). Similarly, we first use a well-established evolutionary probability (EP) approach (Liu et al., 2016) that utilizes phylogenetic trees in combination with the neutral theory of molecular evolution to determine candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) using the early Wuhan sequence as a variant. CAPs are substitutions in SARS-CoV-2 that are rarely observed in other closely related sequences (Figure 1A), which implies a degree of functional importance and makes them candidates for adaptation (Liu et al., 2016). Adaptation in this case means a virus which can successfully infect human hosts. As CAPs are unexpected polymorphisms under neutral theory, their existence implies a non-neutral effect. This can come in the form of functional changes (Liu et al., 2016) or compensation for functional changes (Ose et al., 2022b). Therefore, we suspect that these CAPs may be partially responsible for the functional change allowing the infection of human hosts. In support of this method, we find an overlap between our list of sites containing CAPs and putative adaptive sites identified by others (Cagliani et al., 2020; Singh and Yi, 2021; Kistler et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022b). Second, we use a suite of computational tools to analyze how CAPs that arose in the early and late phases of the COVID-19 pandemic modulate the dynamics of the S protein. We also explore the complex interactions between these sets of CAPs to gain mechanistic insight into the behavior of molecular adaptation involving the S protein. In particular, we focused on how mutations modulate protein dynamics as we and others have previously found that rather than changing a protein’s structure solely, mutations modulate conformational dynamics, leading to changes in biophysical properties such as stability, flexibility, and allosteric dynamic coupling, any of which may affect protein binding (Swint-Kruse et al., 1998; Keskin et al., 2000; Bhabha et al., 2013; Nussinov and Tsai, 2013; Campbell et al., 2016; Ma and Nussinov, 2016; Saavedra et al., 2018; Kuzmanic et al., 2020).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Evolutionary probability (EP) in SARS-CoV-2.

(A) The EPs of each amino acid in the S protein sequence are calculated by taking the multiple sequence alignment of the S proteins through their evolutionary tree and using Bayesian inferences to determine the likelihood of finding a particular residue at a particular location within a given sequence. Simply, if the residue is found at a location ‘x’ in closely related sequences, it will have a higher EP at location ‘x’ in the target sequence. Residues with an EP < 0.05 in the target sequence are candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) (red). CAPs are found at sites 32, 50, 218, 346, 372, 478, 486, 498, 519, 604, 681, 682, 683, 684, and 1125. (B) The distribution of EP scores of the wild-type residues in the S protein. Here, lower EP scores are shown in red, and higher EP scores in blue. While the vast majority of the wild-type (reference) protein consists of high EP residues, a few residues have low EP. (C) The CAPs are also highlighted as red spheres in the open configuration of the S protein, with the open chain in a darker shade. We observe that a majority of the CAP positions reside at the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and the Furin cleavage site (676-689; Wrobel et al., 2020) shown as transparent light gray spheres.

With this evolutionary-dynamics unified approach, we aim to answer the following questions about VOCs: Are all the mutations in VOCs adaptive in nature? Are they coupled to one another or provide some measure of biophysical, dynamical, or mechanical epistasis? While many of these mutations are found within the RBD, numerous others are located distal to this region; hence, we aim to investigate the functional roles of distal mutations, particularly from a protein dynamics perspective. Our integrated analysis revealed that protein dynamics play a significant role in the evolution of the S protein. The flexibility of sites within the S protein shows a strong, direct correlation with substitution rate, and newly evolving CAPS are mostly additive mutations that modulate the dynamics of the hACE2 binding site. Yet other CAPs, 346R, 486F, and 498Q, show highly epistatic (i.e., non-additive) modulation of the hACE2 binding site and provide immune escape benefits.

Results and discussion

Candidate adaptive mutations in the S protein are recognized via EPs

SARS-CoV-2 is part of a family of coronaviruses, many of which infect mainly animals and are less capable of infecting humans (Dicken et al., 2021). Therefore, to identify the most likely mutations responsible for the infection of human hosts (i.e., putative adaptive mutations for humans), we estimated the (neutral) EP scores of mutations found within the S protein (Liu et al., 2016). EP scores of the amino acid variants of the S protein were obtained using a maximum likelihood phylogeny (Kumar et al., 2018) built from 19 orthologous coronavirus sequences. Sequences were selected by examining available non-human sequences with a sequence identity of 70% or above to the human SARS CoV-2’s S protein sequence. This cutoff allows for divergence over evolutionary history such that each amino acid position had ample time to experience purifying selection, whilst limiting ourselves to closely related coronaviruses. (Figure 1A). The likelihood of finding a particular amino acid in the sequence is then determined using a Bayesian framework, with calculations carried out by MEGA X software (Kumar et al., 2018). As apparent in the name, EP scores obtained for the amino acids in the sequence provide information regarding the likelihood of finding them at their position, given the history of the sequence. Amino acid residues receiving low EP scores (<0.05) at a position are less likely to be found in a given position within the sequence because they are non-neutral. Generally, positions with low EP amino acids are far less common than those containing mutations with high EP, a trend also realized in the CoV-2 S protein (Figure 1B).

Of particular interest is an observed evolutionary change where an amino acid with high EP is replaced by an amino acid residue with low EP. While amino acids with low EP should be harmful or deleterious to viral fitness due to functional disruption or change, fixation of a low EP amino acid at a position suggests an underlying mechanism for natural selection to operate. These fixed, low EP mutations are called CAPs as they are predicted to alter protein function, and adaptive pressures may drive their prevalence (Kumar and Patel, 2018). Indeed, there is an overlap between these CAPs and the mutations suggested by other methods to be adaptive for the S protein (Cagliani et al., 2020; Singh and Yi, 2021; Kistler et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022b). Within these studies, sites 478, 486, 498, and 681 have been implicated in SARS-CoV-2 evolution, leaving the remaining 11 CAPs as undiscovered candidate sites for adaptation.

Interestingly, most of the CAP residues are at functionally critical sites, including the RBD and the Furin cleavage site (Figure 1C). As mentioned earlier, the RBD plays a key role in initiating the infection of a healthy cell by binding with the host organism’s ACE2 protein. Before ACE2 binding, one chain of the homotrimer comprising the S protein must open to expose the RBD (Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016; Henderson et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2020; Sztain et al., 2021). The Furin cleavage site plays a key role in the opening process as the binding of host cell protease Furin aids in the cleavage of the S protein into two domains: S1 and S2 (Wrobel et al., 2020: 13). Another host cell protease, TMPRSS2, facilitates viral attachment to the surface of target cells upon binding either to sites Arg815/Ser816, or Arg685/Ser686 which overlap with the Furin cleavage site 676–689, further emphasizing the importance of this area (; Fraser et al., 2022). Similar cleavage sites have been found in related coronaviruses, including HKU1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), which infects humans (Chan et al., 2008: 1; Millet and Whittaker, 2014; Millet and Whittaker, 2015), and the acquisition of similar cleavage sites is associated with increased pathogenicity in other viruses such as the influenza virus (Steinhauer, 1999). Interestingly, however, CAPs do not display such an overwhelming tendency to occur at well-known critical sites within human proteins studied with similar methods (Ose et al., 2022b), yet mutations at those sites are associated with disease, indicating their critical role in inducing functional change. Therefore, the identified CAPs in the S protein, which are signs of recent evolution, can provide mechanistic insights regarding the molecular adaptation of the virus. In particular, we aimed to analyze how these CAP positions in the S protein modulate the interaction with hACE2 using our protein dynamics-based analysis (Gerek and Ozkan, 2011; Nevin Gerek et al., 2013; Larrimore et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2015).

Asymmetry in communications among the network of interactions in spike describes how CAPs regulate the dynamics of the S protein

A mutation at a given amino acid position inevitably not only alters local interactions, but this change cascades through the residue–residue interaction network, which gives rise to a variation in native ensemble dynamics to modulate function (Dror et al., 2012; Labbadia and Morimoto, 2015; Sekhar and Kay, 2019; Campitelli et al., 2020.). Many groups have already examined the conformational dynamics of the S protein using normal mode analysis to explore mutation sites and interactions with different receptors (Zhou et al., 2020; Majumder et al., 2021; Teruel et al., 2021a; Verkhivker, 2022). However, our study will focus mainly on the role of CAPs, of which F486 and Q498 have already been identified through perturbation response scanning (PRS) as potential allosteric sites (Verkhivker, 2022). Thus, we analyze the internal dynamics of the system to understand the functional role of CAPs in S proteins. This analysis allows us to gain a mechanistic understanding of the relationship between CAP mutations and biophysical outcomes (Teruel et al., 2021b). First, we implement the dynamic coupling index (DCI) approach to study long-distance coupling between the CAPs and the hACE2 binding sites emerging from the 3D network of interactions across the S protein system. DCI calculation combines PRS and linear response theory (LRT) to capture the strength of a displacement response for position i upon perturbation of position j, relative to the average fluctuation response of position i to all other positions in the protein. It represents the strength of dynamic coupling between positions i and j upon perturbation to j (Larrimore et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2015).

Further, asymmetry can be captured in the DCI values as dynamic coupling is not necessarily symmetric due to an anisotropic interaction network. That is, each amino acid has a set of positions to which it is highly coupled, and this anisotropy in connections gives rise to unique differences in coupling between a given i, j pair of amino acids which do not have direct interactions. By calculating the coupling of the hACE2 binding interface in the RBD with respect to the CAP residue positions and vice versa, we can generate DCI_asym (Figure 2A) as the difference between the normalized displacement response of position j upon a perturbation to position i (DCI_ij) and the normalized displacement response of position i upon a perturbation to position j (DCI_ji) (see ‘Methods’). If the DCI_asym values significantly differ from zero, it shows asymmetry in coupling and presents a cause–effect relationship between the i, j pair in terms of force/signal propagation. This metric has been used previously in a variety of systems to analyze the unique behavior of positions within a protein and a given position’s propensity to effect biophysical changes upon mutation, particularly at long distances (Modi and Ozkan, 2018; Campitelli and Ozkan, 2020; Kolbaba-Kartchner et al., 2021; Ose et al., 2022a; Kazan et al., 2023; Campitelli et al., 2021).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) control binding sites across chains.

(A) Schematic representation of DCI_asym. (B) DCI_asym of CAP residue positions with the binding interface of receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the open chain. Residues in the closed chains with a low evolutionary probability (EP) amino acid in the reference sequence dominate the binding site interface of RBD in the open chain. There is a significant difference between the asymmetry profiles of the closed (M = –0.06, SD = 0.33) and open (M = –1.68, SD = 0.89) conformations (p<0.001).

Recent work from our group has shown an enhancement in cross-chain communication within the main protease of SARS COV-2 compared to SARS COV-1 (Campitelli et al., 2022). Furthermore, previous studies have shown that allosteric inter-chain communication is important to S protein function (Zhou et al., 2020; Spinello et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2022; Xue et al., 2022). In support of these findings, we observe through DCI_asym that when the S protein is in its pre-fusion conformation with one chain open, the CAPs in the closed chains have negative coupling asymmetry with respect to the hACE2 binding site interface in the RBD-open chain. This indicates an allosteric control where the hACE2 binding site is dominated by the dynamics of the CAPs in closed chains (Figure 2B, yellow bars). As this open-state RBD is critical for the viral infection of host cells (Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016), our results suggest that this type of closed-to-open cross-chain interaction is important for viral proliferation. Our prior studies on DCI_asym show a similar trend in lactose inhibitor (LacI), a protein with a functional role in gene expression through binding DNA. The allosteric mutations (i.e., mutations on the sites that are far from the DNA binding sites) that alter DNA binding affinity not only exhibited unique asymmetry profiles with the DNA binding sites of LacI, but also regulated the dynamics of these binding sites (Campitelli et al., 2021).

Similarly, it is possible that mutations to such residue positions within the S protein can be used to regulate the dynamics of the hACE2 bindings sites of the open RBD state. We, therefore, propose that the residue positions with CAP substitutions hold the potential for mutations in the spike sequence which can alter the opening and closing dynamics of the RBD. This hypothesis is further supported by many mutations already observed at these residue positions which alter the infection rate (Brister et al., 2015). Interestingly, residues responsible for extremely low asymmetry values (<–4) lie overwhelmingly in the region 476–486. These same residues were suggested to stabilize S protein dynamics and prime it for host Furin proteolysis (Raghuvamsi et al., 2021).

Moreover, as a control, we performed the same analysis on the S protein with the RBDs of all chains in the closed configuration. In this case, we observed that the DCI_asym of the CAPs residue positions with respect to the hACE2 interface in the other chains yields a largely symmetric distribution about 0 (Figure 2B, green bars). This verifies that the asymmetry in the coupling of CAPs with the exposed binding site interface in pre-fusion configuration results from one of the RBDs opening up and further suggests the allosteric role played by CAPs in locking the S protein in the RBD open state.

Dynamics analysis shows that rigid sites tend to be more highly conserved than flexible sites

CAPs represent important S protein amino acid changes between related coronaviruses across multiple species and the Wuhan-Hu-1 reference sequence (MN908947). Since SARS-CoV-2 first spread to humans, it has continued to mutate and evolve rapidly, particularly regarding the S protein (Amicone et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022). Just as mutations leading to the Wuhan strain caused an increase in binding affinity to hACE2, continued evolution in human hosts has resulted in further altered binding affinities as well as different phenotypic outcomes for those infected (Ali et al., 2021; Barton et al., 2021; Ozono et al., 2021).

We explore whether protein dynamics has played a role in the selection of mutational sites during the evolution of the S protein since 2019. Our previous work has indicated that the rate of evolution per positional site exhibits a positive correlation with positional flexibility; generally, positions that exhibit higher flexibility are also sites that experience a higher number of amino acid substitutions (Liu and Bahar, 2012; Maguid et al., 2008; Maguid et al., 2006; Mikulska-Ruminska et al., 2019; Nevin Gerek et al., 2013). To confirm these findings for the evolution of the S protein using the sequenced variants of infected humans, we examine the flexibility of the S protein, an analysis conducted in other studies which resulted in several important findings (Nguyen et al., 2020; Socher et al., 2021; Teruel et al., 2021b; Pipitò et al., 2022; Verkhivker, 2022; Abduljalil et al., 2023). For example, Teruel et al., 2021a used their Elastic Network Contact Model to find how certain highly observed mutations make the open state more rigid and the closed state more flexible. For our own flexibility analysis, we measure the site-specific amino acid flexibility using the dynamic flexibility index (DFI). Using the same mathematical foundation as DCI, DFI evaluates each position’s displacement response to random force perturbations at other locations in the protein (Gerek and Ozkan, 2011; Nevin Gerek et al., 2013), and it can be considered a measure of a given position’s ability to explore its local conformational space. We found that the COVID-19 S protein shows the expected high correlation between the occurrence of mutations and site flexibility (Figure 3) when we compare %DFI (DFI ranked by percentile) to the average number of variants per position found within a given %DFI bin. Previous studies have indicated that rigid residues are critical for functional dynamics, thus more likely to impact function if mutated and, generally, can lead to a loss of function and thus more conserved (Kim et al., 2015; Butler et al., 2018; Modi et al., 2021b; Modi et al., 2021a; Kazan et al., 2022; Ose et al., 2022a; Stevens et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2015). This analysis also agrees with these previous studies and highlights the power of negative selection, in line with the neutral theory of molecular evolution, stating that deleterious mutations (i.e., those on the rigid positions) should be eliminated and therefore not observed (Kimura, 1983).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

The average number of variants observed among residues of different flexibility.

Residues were sorted into one of five bins based on flexibility. Then, the average number of variants for residues within that bin was calculated. Here, the number of variants is defined as the number of different amino acid varieties found at that site. Mutational data was calculated across approximately 24,000 SARS-CoV-2 S protein sequences from the NCBI Datasets Project (Brister et al., 2015). Residue flexibility, as reported here via %DFI, was computed using PDB id 6vsb from the Protein DataBank (Berman et al., 2000). More rigid residues tend to have fewer variants (r = 0.94).

Figure 3—source data 1 A comparison of the amino acid sequences for different variant spike proteins used in this article. Sequence MN90894.3 is used as the wild-type (reference) sequence. For each different variant, residue positions matching the reference sequence are shown in blue, while locations where the residue differs from the reference sequence are shown in yellow. For S protein locations not shown here, all variants presented have the same amino acid type as the reference sequence.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/92063/elife-92063-fig3-data1-v1.xlsx
Download elife-92063-fig3-data1-v1.xlsx

Continued mutations within human hosts have resulted in a multitude of variants. Indeed, by fitting various molecular clock models to genome sequence data, VOC emergence is punctuated by an episodic period of rapid evolution, with a substitution rate of up to fourfold greater than the background substitution rate (Kumar et al., 2021; Tay et al., 2022). With such an aggressive evolutionary rate, we are finding VOCs to consist of a number of different characteristic mutations, almost all of which are CAPs. Sequence differences between the various VOCs used in this article can be found in Figure 3—source data 1.

To explore the dynamic effects of the evolution of the spike in humans, we examine asymmetry with these new potentially adaptive sites, namely the low EP (CAP) characteristic mutation sites observed in the Delta variant, the widely dominant variant from December 2021 to January 2022 (Thye et al., 2021), and the Omicron variant, a highly transmissible variant whose lineages have remained dominant since January 2022 (Kim et al., 2021; Figure 4). This analysis revealed a mechanism similar to that for the CAPs in the reference protein (Figure 2) as the open-chain binding interface is also allosterically controlled by these potentially new adaptive sites. Regarding this, we see that the asymmetry is much more pronounced in observed mutations of Omicron variants, suggesting that these new mutations have a stronger power in controlling the dynamics of open-chain hACE2 binding interface compared to those observed in Delta variants. We surmise that the difference in virulence and infection rates between Omicron and Delta (Earnest et al., 2022; Bager et al., 2021; Sheikh et al., 2021; Twohig et al., 2022; Houhamdi et al., 2022; Menni et al., 2022) might be due to these specific CAPs within each variant and their differences in allosterically controlling the dynamics of open RBD binding sites as also observed in the DCI_asym analysis of the Wuhan variant in Figure 2.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Mutations in variants of concern (VOCs) present different asymmetry profiles.

(A) DCI_asym with low evolutionary probability (EP) characteristic mutation sites of Delta or Omicron strains in the closed chains and the binding interface of receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the open chain. Delta displays a second peak closer to zero, suggesting that Delta mutation sites (M = –0.98, SD = 0.80) have less allosteric control over the hACE2 binding sites than Omicron mutation sites (M = –1.74, SD = 1.00) (p<0.001). However, both sets of sites have far more control over hACE2 binding sites than expected, based on a random control group (M = 0.03, SD = 0.85) (p<0.001). (B) S protein structure showing binding interface sites (transparent gray), Delta mutation sites (magenta), Omicron mutation sites (cyan), and sites mutated in both Omicron and Delta (blue).

Experimental results motivate the use of EpiScore within the SARS-CoV-2 S protein

The fact that the identified CAPs in the reference protein and the more recently evolved CAPs of Delta and Omicron variants both show a high degree of control over the functional sites begs the question: what is the complex interaction between these previous and new CAP sites? Motivated by this concept, we explore the interplay of mutational pairs to understand the effects of the specific amino acid backgrounds associated with these two predominant variants. Some CAP sites in Delta and Omicron have already been considered adaptive (Kemp et al., 2021; Kistler et al., 2022; Maher et al., 2022; Neher, 2022).

It is well understood that the impact of even a single mutation to a protein sequence can sometimes dramatically alter the biophysical behavior of the system. However, the mechanistic impact of point mutations can only be fully understood when the sequence background upon which it is made is accounted for. This means that, in the case of strains with multiple mutations, the interplay between mutated positions will ultimately impact a protein as an aggregate behavior, where the presence of previous mutations may strongly (or weakly) influence some mutations. This concept of non-additivity is known as epistasis. In fact, studies of evolutionary pathways of mutations have suggested that a majority of the mutations have a second or a higher order epistasis among them (Bershtein et al., 2006). Nature exploits this higher order complex relationship between the mutations to evolve their function.

To computationally capture and interpret the pairwise effects of mutations, we have developed an in-house computational tool called EpiScore (Figure 5A). Here, we evaluate how a given position pair i j may affect other critical positions k of the protein. EpiScore is the relative coupling strength to a position k when positions i and j are perturbed simultaneously compared to the average dynamic coupling strength of i to k and j to k. EpiScore has previously been used successfully to capture overarching trends in GB1 deep mutational scan data as well as specific instances of the development of antibiotic resistance in various enzymatic systems (Campitelli and Ozkan, 2020). An EpiScore of 1 indicates perfect coupling additivity, and deviations from this value represent non-additive behavior between position pairs and functionally important sites. Prior EpiScore work has shown a difference in EpiScore between the sites of compensatory and non-compensatory mutations, where both yield distributions with peaks around 1, but non-compensatory mutations show higher deviation in their EpiScore distribution (Ose et al., 2022b).

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

EpiScore provides a measurement of epistasis.

(A) Schematic representation of cross-chain EpiScore, describing *i, j*, in chains B and C, respectively, and its impact in receptor-binding domain (RBD) binding position k in the open RBD conformer chain A. (B) Colors indicate EpiScore values for given mutation pairs, averaged over hACE2 binding sites. Cross-chain residue pairs in the upper right tend to be highly epistatic, similar to pairwise second-order interaction coefficients from Moulana et al., 2022.

Many studies have confirmed epistasis between residues within the S protein (Moulana et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022a; Moulana et al., 2023; Witte et al., 2023). These epistatic residues can have various effects on hACE2 or antibody binding. Within SARS-CoV-2, here we calculate the EpiScore (Figure 5B) of a set of mutation pairs used by Moulana et al., 2022 and compare our results to quantified epistatic effects determined by the experimental hACE2 binding affinity of ‘first-order’ single mutation variants compared to ‘second-order’ mutation pairs. Our EpiScore results and the experimentally determined epistasis both captured highly epistatic behavior among residues 493, 496, 498, 501, and 505, as well as a lack of epistatic behavior for residues 339, 371, 373, and 375; however, EpiScore generally showed higher epistasis values than experiment for residues 417, 440, 446, 477, 478, and 484.

EpiScore highlights the epistatic relationship between the recent adaptive mutations in VOCs and the CAPs of the Wuhan reference

Seeking further to understand the role of epistasis within S protein variants, we explored the possibility of epistatic relationships between the CAPs of the Wuhan variant and the new CAPs in VOCs. Thus, we computed the EpiScore of these CAP positions in the closed RBDs (i.e., chains B and C) with respect to functional hACE2 binding interface sites of the open RBD chain (chain A) (Figure 5B) and obtained EpiScore distributions.

To contrast these variants, Omicron (Figure 6, cyan) shows a high proportion of additive mutations compared to the Delta variant (Figure 6, magenta), with a peak centered on 1. The comparatively more pathogenic Delta variant exhibited many non-additive mutations with EpiScores below one. This again suggests that the cross-communication between the open and closed chain of the S protein is important for regulating the function. Four out of seven low EP Delta mutation sites used in this analysis often resulted in EpiScores below 1. Each of those is found in the N-terminal domain (NTD) on or near the N3 loop and is implicated in antibody escape in recent studies (Chi et al., 2020; Weisblum et al., 2020; Harvey et al., 2021; Klinakis et al., 2021; Cantoni et al., 2022). The low EpiScores of NTD mutations suggest that they dampen the control of Wuhan variant CAPs over the hACE2 binding sites in addition to their effects on antibody binding. It is possible that what the Delta variant gained in transmission rate also came with being more harmfully pathogenic due in part to negatively epistatic interactions. In contrast, the mutations leading to the development of the Omicron strain were additive with respect to Wuhan variant CAPs, possibly leading to a lower pathogenicity and higher effective immune escape, resulting in an overall higher transmission rate. Another possible explanation for the higher transmission rate of Omicron comes from a different normal mode analysis study, which found that despite reduced binding affinity with hACE2, Omicron showed increased occupancy of the open state compared to the closed state, which would increase chances of interaction with hACE2 (Teruel et al., 2021b). It is worth noting that other variants contain NTD mutations which result in low EpiScores; however, the proportion of these mutations within the set is considerably less than in Delta (Figure 6—figure supplement 2).

Figure 6 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

EpiScores of variants of concern (VOC) mutations.

Here, i = low evolutionary probability (EP) Delta mutation sites (magenta), low EP Omicron mutation sites (cyan), and a random selection of sites (gray), j = low EP sites in the Wuhan variant, and k = the binding interface of the open chain. EpiScores using sites of either variant (Delta: M = 0.70, SD = 0.50, Omicron M = 0.86, SD = 0.46) are significantly different (p<0.001) from a set of EpiScores using random sites (M = 0.84, SD = 0.41), but the distribution for Delta variants differs much more from the other two. EpiScores for other variants can be found in Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

One of the more notable features of generated EpiScore distributions is the presence of a tail of values upward of 2.0, indicating highly epistatic behavior. Interestingly, these tails are largely due to three different CAPs: 346R, 486F, and 498Q. Those residues are nearby one another within the protein structure and have been reported to play a role in antibody binding, either being known antibody binding sites (346R and 486F) or having received very high antibody accessibility scores (498Q) (Harvey et al., 2021; Raghuvamsi et al., 2021). These observed high EpiScore values also support other studies indicating the epistatic interactions between these CAPs and the mutations of the VOCs within the S protein are crucial for maintaining binding affinity of hACE2 whilst evading immunity (Hong et al., 2022; Starr et al., 2022b).

Inspection of EpiScores of Delta and Omicron potentially adaptive mutation sites with only CAP site 486F (a binding site for both hACE2 and antibodies) (Huang et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2021; Harvey et al., 2021; Raghuvamsi et al., 2021) shows highly epistatic interactions at other hACE2 binding sites (Figure 6). However, within a recent and rapidly spreading subvariant of Omicron, XBB 1.5, we see a mutation of S to P, a rare double nucleotide mutation, at site 486 (preceding Omicron variants included mutation F486S from the original CAP). This new variant has unprecedented immune escape capabilities, resisting neutralizing antibodies almost entirely (Qu et al., 2023). EpiScores of other XBB 1.5-specific mutation sites with 486P are almost entirely greater than 1, showing an even higher degree of epistasis with the binding sites of RBD (Figure 7). These results present a threefold importance for the S486P mutation: not only does this residue alter antibody (i.e., immune escape) and hACE2 binding by directly modifying a binding site, but it may also be responsible for modifying hACE2 binding via epistatic cooperation with other co-occurring mutations.

Figure 7 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

EpiScores with candidate adaptive polymorphism (CAP) site 486.

Here, i = low evolutionary probability (EP) Delta mutation sites (magenta), low EP Omicron mutation sites (cyan), and a random selection of sites (gray), j = site 486, and k = the binding interface of the open chain. CAP and hACE2 and antibody binding site 486 displays epistasis with almost all XBB 1.5 variant sites at almost every hACE2 binding site (M = 1.40, SD = 0.46) and presents a significantly different profile from other variant sites (p<0.01). EpiScores involving 486 for other variants can be found in Figure 7—figure supplement 1.

Change in flexibility of RBD binding site correlates with experimental binding affinities for Omicron and Omicron XBB variants

Experimental studies have tracked hACE2 binding for different variants since the virus first spread (Ali et al., 2021; Barton et al., 2021; Ozono et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022). Within the Omicron variant, for example, characteristic mutations on the RBD are shown to increase the overall binding affinity of the virus to the ACE2 receptor, which is suspected to allow it to spread more easily (Kim et al., 2021). Furthermore, the new Omicron XBB and Omicron XBB 1.5 variants contain additional mutations in the RBD and antibody binding residues, which may further impact their dynamics and interactions with the host.

To gain deeper insights into the impact of dynamics on the binding affinity of hACE2 and antibodies with the recent Omicron XBB variants, we conducted molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. By analyzing the resulting trajectories, we investigated how these mutations influence the flexibility and rigidity of the RBD and antibody binding residues, consequently affecting their binding affinity and potential for immune evasion (Figure 8). To understand the overall flexibility changes, we measured the sum of DFI of the ACE2 binding residues, as well as the sum of DFI of the antibody binding residues, calculated from the MD trajectories and compared them with experimental viral binding (disassociation constants) and immunity evasion antibody IC50 values (Yue et al., 2023).

Figure 8 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

The %DFI calculations for variants Omicron, XBB, and XBB 1.5.

(A) %DFI profile of the variants are plotted in the same panel. The gray shaded areas and dashed lines indicate the ACE2 binding regions, whereas the red dashed lines show the antibody binding residues. (B) The sum of %DFI values of RBD-ACE2 interface residues. The trend of total %DFI with the log of K_d values overlaps with the one seen with the experiments (r = 0.97). (C) The receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody binding residues are used to calculate the sum of %DFI. The ranking captured with the total %DFI agrees with the log of IC50 values from the experiments.

This investigation elucidated the impact of mutations in the RBD and antibody binding residues on the binding affinity of the S protein and immune evasion by modulating their flexibility and rigidity (Figure 8A). The Omicron XBB variant exhibits heightened flexibility in hACE2 and antibody binding residues, reducing infectivity and enhancing immune evasion. Conversely, the Omicron XBB 1.5 variant induces distinct dynamics in these regions, rendering the RBD-ACE2 interface more rigid while increasing flexibility in antibody binding residues. These effects indicate that Omicron XBB 1.5 retains its antibody escape capabilities while regaining ACE2 binding affinity comparable to previous Omicron variants, in accordance with experimental findings (Yue et al., 2023). These findings suggest that mutations in the RBD and antibody binding residues can have complex effects on the dynamics of the protein and, ultimately, on the virus’s ability to infect and evade the host immune system through an alteration of binding site dynamics. However, we do note that the effect of mutations will heavily depend on the genetic background in which they are mutated. The effects of a mutation on a Delta variant protein may differ entirely from the effects of a mutation on an Omicron variant protein (Figure 8—figure supplement 1).

Conclusion

We analyzed the evolutionary trajectory of the CoV-2 S protein in humans to understand the dynamic and epistatic interactions of the mutations defining specific VOCs. We first obtain the phylogenetic tree of the COV-2 S protein and identify the sites of certain recent mutations known as CAPs. CAPs are considered adaptive because mutations rarely tolerated in closely related sequences have suddenly become fixed, implying a degree of functional importance or evolution (Liu et al., 2016). In addition, our earlier work has shown that CAPS can also be compensatory; multiple CAPs may dynamically compensate for one another, changing the dynamic landscape and allowing for different mutations (Ose et al., 2022b). We then explored the mechanistic insights and epistatic relationship between the observed mutations in different VOCs and CAP sites, and, particularly, the relationship between CAP sites and the functionally critical RBD using our dynamic coupling analysis (Kumar et al., 2015).

We find a mechanistic pattern in the S protein evolution that is common amongst previously studied systems, where allosteric sites exert control over the dynamics of the binding sites, and mutations of these allosteric sites modulate function. Coupling our analysis with evolutionary theory showed that many of these allosteric sites regulating function of the S protein may have been subjected to adaptive evolution as observed in mutations in VOCs. Our dynamics analysis also provides a mechanistic insight where the Omicron-defining sites have greater control over the binding sites than the Delta variant and are dynamically additive with the functional advantage of CAPs, thus, the greatest infectivity may not be a coincidence.

Specifically, we find that the interactions between CAP sites and VOC-defining mutations show fingerprints of non-additive dynamics within the Delta variant. In contrast, mutations leading to the Omicron variant are largely additive, driving critical dynamical behavior closer to the patterns observed within the wild-type. These interactions may also drive observed behavior similar between the reference and Omicron strains yet differ in the delta strain, such as the severity of infection as evidenced by hospitalization rates (Houhamdi et al., 2022; Menni et al., 2022). It has also been shown that the Omicron variant has a lower binding affinity with hACE2 than previous variants (Wu et al., 2022), which may contribute to its low pathogenicity.

Long-ranged interactions between different sites within a given protein are critically important for protein function (Peters and Lively, 1999; Bershtein et al., 2006; Collins et al., 2006; Ekeberg et al., 2013; Levy et al., 2017; Harrigan et al., 2018; Otten et al., 2018; Rojas Echenique et al., 2019; Shimagaki and Weigt, 2019; de la Paz et al., 2020; Rizzato et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020; Bisardi et al., 2022) and for the CoV-2 S protein in particular (Zeng et al., 2020; Castiglione et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2021; Garvin et al., 2021; Nielsen et al., 2022; Ramarao-Milne et al., 2022; Rochman et al., 2022; Rodriguez-Rivas et al., 2022). By showing dynamic differences between the interactions of CAPs, which have likely played a major role in allowing the virus to infect human hosts, the binding site, and the characteristic mutations of dominant Delta and Omicron strains, we see a ‘fine-tuning’ of protein behavior. As variants continue to evolve, Omicron subvariants are of growing concern due in large part to further increased immune evasion (Callaway, 2022; Wang et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2022b), and we observe that the new mutations observed in antibody binding sites yield more epistatic interaction with the CAPs. In addition to supporting previous dynamic research on the S protein, this analysis provides the insight that CAP sites are of continued importance to protein function and should be given special attention when considering the impact of future mutations.

Methods

Dynamic flexibility and dynamic coupling

The DFI utilizes a PRS technique that combines the elastic network model (ENM) and LRT (Gerek and Ozkan, 2011; Nevin Gerek et al., 2013). In ENM, the protein is considered as a network of beads at Cα positions interacting with each other via a harmonic spring potential. Using LRT, ∆R is calculated as the fluctuation response vector of residue j due to unit force’s F perturbation on residue i, averaged over multiple unit force directions to simulate an isotropic perturbation.

{[Δ R]}_{3 N \times 1} = {[H]}_{3 N \times 3 N}^{- 1} {[F]}_{3 N \times 1}

where H is the Hessian, a 3N × 3N matrix that can be constructed from 3-D atomic coordinate information and is composed of the second derivatives of the harmonic potential with respect to the components of the position’s vectors of length 3N. The Hessian inverse in this equation may be replaced with the covariance matrix G obtained from MD simulations as follows:

{[Δ R]}_{3 N \times 1} = {[G]}_{3 N \times 3 N} {[F]}_{3 N \times 1}

MD simulations were used to obtain the DFI profiles of Omicron, Omicron XBB, and Omicron XBB 1.5. In order to obtain DFI, each position in the structure was perturbed sequentially to generate a Perturbation Response Matrix A

A_{N \times N} = [\begin{array}{ccc} {| Δ R^{1} |}_{1} & \dots & {| Δ R^{N} |}_{1} \\ ⋮ & ⋱ & ⋮ \\ {| Δ R^{1} |}_{N} & \dots & {| Δ R^{N} |}_{N} \end{array}]

where ${|Δ R^{j}|}_{i} = \sqrt{⟨{(∆ R)}^{2}⟩}$ is the magnitude of fluctuation response at position i due to perturbations at position j. The DFI value of position i is then treated as the displacement response of position i relative to the net displacement response of the entire protein, which is calculated by sequentially perturbing each position in the structure.

{D F I}_{i} = \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{N} {|{Δ R}^{j}|}_{i}}{\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \sum_{j = 1}^{N} {|{Δ R}^{j}|}_{i}}

It is also often useful to quantify position flexibility relative to the flexibility ranges unique to individual structures. To that end, DFI can be presented as a percentile rank, %DFI. All %DFI calculations present in this work used the DFI value of every residue of the full spike structure for ranking. The DFI parameter can be considered a measure of a given amino acid position’s ability to explore its local conformational space.

Dynamic coupling index

Similar to DFI, the DCI (Larrimore et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2015) also utilizes PRS with the ENM and LRT. DCI captures the strength of displacement response of a given position i upon perturbation to a single functionally important position (or subset of positions) j, relative to the average fluctuation response of position i when all of the positions within a structure are perturbed.

D C I_{j i} = \frac{\sum_{j}^{N_{f u n c t i o n a l}} {| Δ R^{j} |}_{i} / N_{f u n c t i o n a l}}{\sum_{j = 1}^{N} {| Δ R^{j} |}_{i} / N}

When only positional pairs are concerned, this expression reduces to

{D C I}_{j i} = \frac{{|{Δ R}^{j}|}_{i}}{\sum_{j = 1}^{N} {|{Δ R}^{j}|}_{i} / N}

As such, this parameter represents a measure of the dynamic coupling between i and j upon a perturbation to j. As with DFI, DCI_ji can also be presented as a percentile-ranked %DCI_ji.

One of the most important aspects of DCI is that the entire network of interactions is explicitly included in subsequent calculations without the need for dimensionality reduction techniques. If one considers interactions such as communication directionality or dynamic coupling regulation between position pairs as inherent properties of an anisotropic interaction network, it is critical to include the interactions of the entire network to accurately model the effect one residue can have on another.

Here, we present two further extensions of DCI, which allow us to uniquely model coupling directionality and epistatic effects: DCI_asym and EpiScore, respectively. Interestingly, we can capture asymmetry between different residues within a protein through DCI, as a coupling in and of itself is asymmetric within an anisotropic network. That is, each amino acid has a set of positions to which it is highly coupled, and this anisotropy in connections gives rise to unique differences in coupling between a given i j pair of amino acids which do not have direct interactions (Figure 2A). DCI_asym, then, is simply DCI_ij (the normalized displacement response of position j upon a perturbation to position i) − DCI_ji (Equation (7)). Using DCI_asym, we can determine a cause–effect relationship between the i j pair in terms of force/signal propagation between these two positions.

D C I_{a s y m} = D C I_{i j} - D C I_{j i}

% D C I_{a s y m} = % D C I_{i j} - % D C I_{j i}

where a positive DCI_asym value indicates communication from position i to position j.

EpiScore can identify or describe potential non-additivity in substitution behavior between residue pairs. This metric can capture the differences in a normalized perturbation response to a position k when a force is applied at two residues i and j simultaneously versus the average additive perturbation response when each residue i, j, is perturbed individually (Figure 5A, Equation 9).

E p i S c o r e = \frac{% D C I_{[i j] k}}{\frac{1}{2} (% D C I_{i k} + % D C I_{j k})}

EpiScore values <1 (>1) indicate that the additive perturbations of positions i and j generate a greater (lesser) response at position k than the effect of a simultaneous perturbation. This means that, when treated with a simultaneous perturbation at both sites i and j, the displacement response of k is lower (higher) than the average effect of individual perturbations to i and j, one at a time. As EpiScore is a linear scale, the further the value from 1, the greater the effect described above.

Molecular dynamics (MD)

The production simulations for the Omicron variants, including Omicron, Omicron XBB, and Omicron XBB 1.5, were performed with the AMBER software package. These variants, each characterized by specific mutations, were modeled based on the template PDB structure 6M0J. The initial protein configurations in the simulations were parameterized using the ff14SB force field (Maier et al., 2015). In order to create an appropriate solvation environment for the proteins, a solvation box was defined around them, maintaining a minimum separation distance of 16 Å from the protein to the box boundaries. This was accomplished by employing the explicit TIP3P water model (Sun and Kollman, 1995), with the addition of sodium and chloride ions to maintain overall charge neutrality.

The simulation procedure involves an initial energy minimization step, aimed at mitigating steric clashes and optimizing the system’s energy. The steepest descent algorithm was applied, encompassing 11,000 steps. Subsequently, the system underwent a gradual temperature increase (heat up), up to 300 K, and was subjected to production simulations under a constant number of particles, pressure, and temperature ensemble (NPT).

During these production simulations, temperature was maintained at 300 K, with pressure regulation set at 1 bar. Temperature regulation was achieved through the utilization of the Langevin thermostat (Hünenberger, 2005) and Berendsen barostat (Berendsen et al., 1984), featuring a collision frequency of 1.0 picoseconds⁻¹. Hydrogen atom bond lengths were constrained using the SHAKE algorithm (Pearlman et al., 1995). The production trajectories were simulated for 1 µs each.

To ensure the reliability of the simulations and assess their convergence, a convergence criterion was employed. The achieved convergence was determined by monitoring the root mean square deviation (RMSD) between the highest sampled conformation in consecutive time windows (Sawle and Ghosh, 2016). Specifically, convergence was defined as the point at which the RMSD between the highest sampled conformation in the last 300 ns window and the 300 ns window immediately preceding it dropped below 1 Å. Window sizes varying from 100 ns to 500 ns were employed to evaluate convergence, ensuring the robustness and stability of the obtained results.

To calculate DFI, covariance matrix data were computed over different time windows as discussed above. By default, utilizing the Hessian implies a restriction to a harmonic potential, assuming that the data are sampled from a Gaussian distribution. Ergodicity in both simulation time and initial structures sampled in each time interval ensures two key conditions: (i) consistency of potential energy across conformations sampled from the same distribution. (ii) The sampling of different initial conformations while computing covariance matrices at various time windows eliminates global motions and accurately captures equilibrium coordinates. Consequently, the final average DFI profiles are independent of time window size, resulting in consistent results across different time window sizes (e.g., 50 ns vs. 75 ns) and enabling the acquisition of statistically significant DFI values.

Statistical tests

Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were used to demonstrate linear relationships between continuous variables in Figures 3 and 8. Student’s independent t-tests were performed to demonstrate a significant difference between distributions in Figures 2, 4 and 6 (and Figure 3—source data 1, Figure 6—figure supplements 1 and 2), and Figure 7 (and Figure 7—figure supplement 1), as demonstrated by the p-value.

Data availability

The code to perform DFI and DCI analysis is available at https://github.com/SBOZKAN/DFI-DCI (copy archived at Ozkan, 2024). Molecular Dynamics data are available at https://github.com/SBOZKAN/COV2SPIKE_MD. The mutation sites and EP values are contained in Supplementary file 4. The alignment used to generate EP values is also contained within the supporting information files as "EP_alignment.fas". Protein Databank ID number 6VXX (Walls et al., 2020) was used for closed conformation DCI calculations. 6VSB (Wrapp et al., 2020) was used for DFI calculations, EpiScore calculations, and open conformation DCI calculations. 6M0J (Lan et al., 2020) was used in molecular dynamics simulations of the RBD.

The following data sets were generated

1. Ozkan SB
(2024) GitHub
ID 91b9d69. COV2SPIKE_MD.

https://github.com/SBOZKAN/COV2SPIKE_MD

The following previously published data sets were used

1. Wrapp D
2. Wang N
3. Corbett KS
4. Goldsmith JA
5. Hsieh C
6. Abiona O
7. Graham BS
8. McLellan JS
(2020) RCSB Protein Data Bank
ID 6VSB. Prefusion 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein with a single receptor-binding domain up.

https://www.rcsb.org/structure/6vsb
1. Wang X
2. Lan J
3. Ge J
4. Yu J
5. Shan S
(2020) RCSB Protein Data Bank
ID 6M0J. Crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound with ACE2.

https://www.rcsb.org/structure/6m0j
1. Walls AC
2. Park YJ
3. Tortorici MA
4. Wall A
(2020) RCSB Protein Data Bank
ID 6VXX. Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (closed state).

https://www.rcsb.org/structure/6vxx

References

(2023) How helpful were molecular dynamics simulations in shaping our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein dynamics?
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 242:125153.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125153
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Ali F
2. Kasry A
3. Amin M
(2021) The new SARS-CoV-2 strain shows a stronger binding affinity to ACE2 due to N501Y mutant
Medicine in Drug Discovery 10:100086.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medidd.2021.100086
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Amicone M
2. Borges V
3. Alves MJ
4. Isidro J
5. Zé-Zé L
6. Duarte S
7. Vieira L
8. Guiomar R
9. Gomes JP
10. Gordo I
(2022) Mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 and emergence of mutators during experimental evolution
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health 10:142–155.

https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoac010
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) Hospitalisation associated with SARS-CoV-2 delta variant in Denmark
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases 21:1351.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00580-6
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) Effects of common mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike RBD and its ligand, the human ACE2 receptor on binding affinity and kinetics
eLife 10:e70658.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70658
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(1984) Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath
The Journal of Chemical Physics 81:3684–3690.

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.448118
- Google Scholar
1. Berman HM
2. Westbrook J
3. Feng Z
4. Gilliland G
5. Bhat TN
6. Weissig H
7. Shindyalov IN
8. Bourne PE
(2000) The protein data bank
Nucleic Acids Research 28:235–242.

https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.235
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2006) Robustness-epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein
Nature 444:929–932.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05385
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Bhabha G
2. Ekiert DC
3. Jennewein M
4. Zmasek CM
5. Tuttle LM
6. Kroon G
7. Dyson HJ
8. Godzik A
9. Wilson IA
10. Wright PE
(2013) Divergent evolution of protein conformational dynamics in dihydrofolate reductase
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 20:1243–1249.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2676
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2022) Modeling sequence-space exploration and emergence of epistatic signals in protein evolution
Molecular Biology and Evolution 39:msab321.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab321
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Boni MF
2. Lemey P
3. Jiang X
4. Lam TTY
5. Perry BW
6. Castoe TA
7. Rambaut A
8. Robertson DL
(2020) Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic
Nature Microbiology 5:1408–1417.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0771-4
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2015) NCBI viral genomes resource
Nucleic Acids Research 43:D571–D577.

https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1207
- Google Scholar
1. Butler BM
2. Kazan IC
3. Kumar A
4. Ozkan SB
5. editor
(2018) Coevolving residues inform protein dynamics profiles and disease susceptibility of nSNVs
PLOS Computational Biology 14:e1006626.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006626
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Cagliani R
2. Forni D
3. Clerici M
4. Sironi M
(2020) Computational Inference of Selection Underlying the Evolution of the Novel Coronavirus, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
Journal of Virology 94:e00411-20.

https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00411-20
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Callaway E
(2022) COVID ‘variant soup’ is making winter surges hard to predict
Nature 611:213–214.

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03445-6
- Google Scholar
(2016) The role of protein dynamics in the evolution of new enzyme function
Nature Chemical Biology 12:944–950.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.2175
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Campitelli P
2. Modi T
3. Kumar S
4. Ozkan SB
(2020) The role of conformational dynamics and allostery in modulating protein evolution
Annual Review of Biophysics 49:267–288.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-052118-115517
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Campitelli P
2. Ozkan SB
(2020) Allostery and epistasis: emergent properties of anisotropic networks
Entropy 22:667.

https://doi.org/10.3390/e22060667
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) Substitutions at nonconserved rheostat positions modulate function by rewiring long-range, dynamic interactions
Molecular Biology and Evolution 38:201–214.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa202
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2022) Dynamic allostery highlights the evolutionary differences between the CoV-1 and CoV-2 main proteases
Biophysical Journal 121:1483–1492.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2022.03.012
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Cantoni D
2. Murray MJ
3. Kalemera MD
4. Dicken SJ
5. Stejskal L
6. Brown G
7. Lytras S
8. Coey JD
9. McKenna J
10. Bridgett S
11. Simpson D
12. Fairley D
13. Thorne LG
14. Reuschl AK
15. Forrest C
16. Ganeshalingham M
17. Muir L
18. Palor M
19. Jarvis L
20. Willett B
21. Power UF
22. McCoy LE
23. Jolly C
24. Towers GJ
25. Doores KJ
26. Robertson DL
27. Shepherd AJ
28. Reeves MB
29. Bamford CGG
30. Grove J
(2022) Evolutionary remodelling of N-terminal domain loops fine-tunes SARS-CoV-2 spike
EMBO Reports 23:e54322.

https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202154322
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2023) SARS-CoV-2 variant biology: immune escape, transmission and fitness
Nature Reviews. Microbiology 21:162–177.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00841-7
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Castiglione GM
2. Zhou L
3. Xu Z
4. Neiman Z
5. Hung CF
6. Duh EJ
7. editor
(2021) Evolutionary pathways to SARS-CoV-2 resistance are opened and closed by epistasis acting on ACE2
PLOS Biology 19:e3001510.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001510
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Chan CM
2. Woo PCY
3. Lau SKP
4. Tse H
5. Chen HL
6. Li F
7. Zheng BJ
8. Chen L
9. Huang JD
10. Yuen KY
(2008) RETRACTED: spike protein, s, of human coronavirus HKU1: role in viral life cycle and application in antibody detection
Experimental Biology and Medicine 233:1527–1536.

https://doi.org/10.3181/0806-RM-197
- Google Scholar
1. Changeux JP
2. Edelstein SJ
(2005) Allosteric mechanisms of signal transduction
Science 308:1424–1428.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1108595
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Chi X
2. Yan R
3. Zhang J
4. Zhang G
5. Zhang Y
6. Hao M
7. Zhang Z
8. Fan P
9. Dong Y
10. Yang Y
11. Chen Z
12. Guo Y
13. Zhang J
14. Li Y
15. Song X
16. Chen Y
17. Xia L
18. Fu L
19. Hou L
20. Xu J
21. Yu C
22. Li J
23. Zhou Q
24. Chen W
(2020) A neutralizing human antibody binds to the N-terminal domain of the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2
Science 369:650–655.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc6952
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2006) A strategy for extracting and analyzing large-scale quantitative epistatic interaction data
Genome Biology 7:R63.

https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2006-7-7-r63
- Google Scholar
1. Damas J
2. Hughes GM
3. Keough KC
4. Painter CA
5. Persky NS
6. Corbo M
7. Hiller M
8. Koepfli K-P
9. Pfenning AR
10. Zhao H
11. Genereux DP
12. Swofford R
13. Pollard KS
14. Ryder OA
15. Nweeia MT
16. Lindblad-Toh K
17. Teeling EC
18. Karlsson EK
19. Lewin HA
(2020) Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 predicted by comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates
PNAS 117:22311–22322.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010146117
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2020) Epistatic contributions promote the unification of incompatible models of neutral molecular evolution
PNAS 117:5873–5882.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913071117
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
1. Deng X
2. Garcia-Knight MA
3. Khalid MM
4. Servellita V
5. Wang C
6. Morris MK
7. Sotomayor-González A
8. Glasner DR
9. Reyes KR
10. Gliwa AS
11. Reddy NP
12. Martin CSS
13. Federman S
14. Cheng J
15. Balcerek J
16. Taylor J
17. Streithorst JA
18. Miller S
19. Kumar GR
20. Sreekumar B
21. Chen PY
22. Schulze-Gahmen U
23. Taha TY
24. Hayashi J
25. Simoneau CR
26. McMahon S
27. Lidsky PV
28. Xiao Y
29. Hemarajata P
30. Green NM
31. Espinosa A
32. Kath C
33. Haw M
34. Bell J
35. Hacker JK
36. Hanson C
37. Wadford DA
38. Anaya C
39. Ferguson D
40. Lareau LF
41. Frankino PA
42. Shivram H
43. Wyman SK
44. Ott M
45. Andino R
46. Chiu CY
(2021) Transmission, Infectivity, and Antibody Neutralization of an Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variant in California Carrying a L452R Spike Protein Mutation
medRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.07.21252647
- Google Scholar
1. Díaz-Salinas MA
2. Li Q
3. Ejemel M
4. Yurkovetskiy L
5. Luban J
6. Shen K
7. Wang Y
8. Munro JB
(2022) Conformational dynamics and allosteric modulation of the SARS-CoV-2 spike
eLife 11:e75433.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75433
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
1. Dicken SJ
2. Murray MJ
3. Thorne LG
4. Reuschl AK
5. Forrest C
6. Ganeshalingham M
7. Muir L
8. Kalemera MD
9. Palor M
10. McCoy LE
11. Jolly C
12. Towers GJ
13. Reeves MB
14. Grove J
(2021) Characterisation of B.1.1.7 and pangolin coronavirus spike provides insights on the evolutionary trajectory of SARS-CoV-2
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.22.436468
- Google Scholar
1. Dong A
2. Zhao J
3. Griffin C
4. Wu R
(2021) The genomic physics of COVID-19 pathogenesis and spread
Cells 11:80.

https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11010080
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2016) Dynamical network of residue-residue contacts reveals coupled allosteric effects in recognition, catalysis, and mutation
PNAS 113:4735–4740.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523573113
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Dror RO
2. Dirks RM
3. Grossman JP
4. Xu H
5. Shaw DE
(2012) Biomolecular simulation: A computational microscope for molecular biology
Annual Review of Biophysics 41:429–452.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-042910-155245
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Earnest R
2. Uddin R
3. Matluk N
4. Renzette N
5. Turbett SE
6. Siddle KJ
7. Loreth C
8. Adams G
9. Tomkins-Tinch CH
10. Petrone ME
11. Rothman JE
12. Breban MI
13. Koch RT
14. Billig K
15. Fauver JR
16. Vogels CBF
17. Bilguvar K
18. De Kumar B
19. Landry ML
20. Peaper DR
21. Kelly K
22. Omerza G
23. Grieser H
24. Meak S
25. Martha J
26. Dewey HB
27. Kales S
28. Berenzy D
29. Carpenter-Azevedo K
30. King E
31. Huard RC
32. Novitsky V
33. Howison M
34. Darpolor J
35. Manne A
36. Kantor R
37. Smole SC
38. Brown CM
39. Fink T
40. Lang AS
41. Gallagher GR
42. Pitzer VE
43. Sabeti PC
44. Gabriel S
45. MacInnis BL
46. Tewhey R
47. Adams MD
48. Park DJ
49. Lemieux JE
50. Grubaugh ND
51. New England Variant Investigation Team
(2022) Comparative transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 variants Delta and Alpha in New England, USA
Cell Reports. Medicine 3:100583.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100583
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Ekeberg M
2. Lövkvist C
3. Lan Y
4. Weigt M
5. Aurell E
(2013) Improved contact prediction in proteins: Using pseudolikelihoods to infer Potts models
Physical Review E 87:012707.

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.012707
- Google Scholar
1. Fraser BJ
2. Beldar S
3. Seitova A
4. Hutchinson A
5. Mannar D
6. Li Y
7. Kwon D
8. Tan R
9. Wilson RP
10. Leopold K
11. Subramaniam S
12. Halabelian L
13. Arrowsmith CH
14. Bénard F
(2022) Structure and activity of human TMPRSS2 protease implicated in SARS-CoV-2 activation
Nature Chemical Biology 18:963–971.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-022-01059-7
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2018) Neutral theory and rapidly evolving viral pathogens
Molecular Biology and Evolution 35:1348–1354.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy088
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
(2021) Rapid Expansion of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is a result of adaptive epistasis
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.03.454981
- Google Scholar
1. Gerek ZN
2. Ozkan SB
(2011) Change in allosteric network affects binding affinities of PDZ domains
PLOS Computational Biology 7:e1002154.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002154
- Google Scholar
1. Gobeil SMC
2. Janowska K
3. McDowell S
4. Mansouri K
5. Parks R
6. Manne K
7. Stalls V
8. Kopp MF
9. Henderson R
10. Edwards RJ
11. Haynes BF
12. Acharya P
(2021a) D614G mutation alters SARS-CoV-2 spike conformation and enhances protease cleavage at the S1/S2 junction
Cell Reports 34:108630.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108630
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Gobeil SM-C
2. Janowska K
3. McDowell S
4. Mansouri K
5. Parks R
6. Stalls V
7. Kopp MF
8. Manne K
9. Li D
10. Wiehe K
11. Saunders KO
12. Edwards RJ
13. Korber B
14. Haynes BF
15. Henderson R
16. Acharya P
(2021b) Effect of natural mutations of SARS-CoV-2 on spike structure, conformation, and antigenicity
Science 373:eabi6226.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi6226
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Gur M
2. Taka E
3. Yilmaz SZ
4. Kilinc C
5. Aktas U
6. Golcuk M
(2020) Conformational transition of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein between its closed and open states
The Journal of Chemical Physics 153:075101.

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0011141
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2018) Real-time genetic compensation defines the dynamic demands of feedback control
Cell 175:877–886.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.044
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) SARS-CoV-2 variants, spike mutations and immune escape
Nature Reviews. Microbiology 19:409–424.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-021-00573-0
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Henderson R
2. Edwards RJ
3. Mansouri K
4. Janowska K
5. Stalls V
6. Gobeil SMC
7. Kopp M
8. Li D
9. Parks R
10. Hsu AL
11. Borgnia MJ
12. Haynes BF
13. Acharya P
(2020) Controlling the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein conformation
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 27:925–933.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0479-4
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Hoffmann M
2. Kleine-Weber H
3. Schroeder S
4. Krüger N
5. Herrler T
6. Erichsen S
7. Schiergens TS
8. Herrler G
9. Wu NH
10. Nitsche A
11. Müller MA
12. Drosten C
13. Pöhlmann S
(2020) SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor
Cell 181:271–280.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052
- Google Scholar
1. Hong Q
2. Han W
3. Li J
4. Xu S
5. Wang Y
6. Xu C
7. Li Z
8. Wang Y
9. Zhang C
10. Huang Z
11. Cong Y
(2022) Molecular basis of receptor binding and antibody neutralization of Omicron
Nature 604:546–552.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04581-9
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Houhamdi L
2. Gautret P
3. Hoang VT
4. Fournier P
5. Colson P
6. Raoult D
(2022) Characteristics of the first 1119 SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron variant cases
Journal of Medical Virology 94:2290–2295.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27613
- Google Scholar
1. Huang Y
2. Yang C
3. Xu X-F
4. Xu W
5. Liu S-W
(2020) Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19
Acta Pharmacologica Sinica 41:1141–1149.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-020-0485-4
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Book
1. Hünenberger PH
(2005) Thermostat Algorithms for molecular Dynamics simulations
In: Holm C, Kremer K, editors. Advanced Computer Simulation. Springer. pp. 105–149.

https://doi.org/10.1007/b99427
- Google Scholar
1. Jackson CB
2. Farzan M
3. Chen B
4. Choe H
(2022) Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells
Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 23:3–20.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-021-00418-x
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kazan IC
2. Sharma P
3. Rahman MI
4. Bobkov A
5. Fromme R
6. Ghirlanda G
7. Ozkan SB
(2022) Design of novel cyanovirin-N variants by modulation of binding dynamics through distal mutations
eLife 11:eLife.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67474
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2023) Allosteric regulatory control in dihydrofolate reductase is revealed by dynamic asymmetry
Protein Science 32:e4700.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.4700
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) SARS-CoV-2 evolution during treatment of chronic infection
Nature 592:277–282.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03291-y
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2000)
Characterization of anticancer agents by their growth inhibitory activity and relationships to mechanism of action and structure

Anti-Cancer Drug Design 15:79–98.
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Khan A
2. Zia T
3. Suleman M
4. Khan T
5. Ali SS
6. Abbasi AA
7. Mohammad A
8. Wei D-Q
(2021) Higher infectivity of the SARS-CoV-2 new variants is associated with K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y mutants: An insight from structural data
Journal of Cellular Physiology 236:7045–7057.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.30367
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kim H
2. Zou T
3. Modi C
4. Dörner K
5. Grunkemeyer TJ
6. Chen L
7. Fromme R
8. Matz MV
9. Ozkan SB
10. Wachter RM
(2015) A hinge migration mechanism unlocks the evolution of green-to-red photoconversion in GFP-like proteins
Structure 23:34–43.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2014.11.011
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kim S
2. Nguyen TT
3. Taitt AS
4. Jhun H
5. Park H-Y
6. Kim S-H
7. Kim Y-G
8. Song EY
9. Lee Y
10. Yum H
11. Shin K-C
12. Choi YK
13. Song C-S
14. Yeom SC
15. Kim B
16. Netea M
17. Kim S
(2021) SARS-CoV-2 omicron mutation is faster than the chase: multiple mutations on Spike/ACE2 interaction residues
Immune Network 21:e38.

https://doi.org/10.4110/in.2021.21.e38
- Google Scholar
Book
1. Kimura M
(1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution
Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623486
- Google Scholar
1. Kirchdoerfer RN
2. Cottrell CA
3. Wang N
4. Pallesen J
5. Yassine HM
6. Turner HL
7. Corbett KS
8. Graham BS
9. McLellan JS
10. Ward AB
(2016) Pre-fusion structure of a human coronavirus spike protein
Nature 531:118–121.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17200
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2022) Rapid and parallel adaptive mutations in spike S1 drive clade success in SARS-CoV-2
Cell Host & Microbe 30:545–555.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2022.03.018
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) N-terminal domain mutations of the spike protein are structurally implicated in epitope recognition in emerging SARS-CoV-2 strains
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 19:5556–5567.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2021.10.004
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) The role of rigid residues in modulating TEM-1 β-lactamase function and thermostability
International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22:2895.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22062895
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2015) The role of conformational dynamics and allostery in the disease development of human ferritin
Biophysical Journal 109:1273–1281.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2015.06.060
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kumar S
2. Patel R
(2018) Neutral theory, disease mutations, and personal exomes
Molecular Biology and Evolution 35:1297–1303.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy085
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kumar S
2. Stecher G
3. Li M
4. Knyaz C
5. Tamura K
(2018) MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms
Molecular Biology and Evolution 35:1547–1549.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kumar S
2. Tao Q
3. Weaver S
4. Sanderford M
5. Caraballo-Ortiz MA
6. Sharma S
7. Pond SLK
8. Miura S
(2021) An evolutionary portrait of the progenitor SARS-CoV-2 and Its dominant offshoots in COVID-19 pandemic
Molecular Biology and Evolution 38:3046–3059.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab118
- Google Scholar
(2020) Investigating cryptic binding sites by molecular dynamics simulations
Accounts of Chemical Research 53:654–661.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00613
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Labbadia J
2. Morimoto RI
(2015) The biology of proteostasis in aging and disease
Annual Review of Biochemistry 84:435–464.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060614-033955
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) Characterization of the emerging B.1.621 variant of interest of SARS-CoV-2
Infection, Genetics and Evolution 95:105038.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2021.105038
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Lan J
2. Ge J
3. Yu J
4. Shan S
5. Zhou H
6. Fan S
7. Zhang Q
8. Shi X
9. Wang Q
10. Zhang L
11. Wang X
(2020) Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound to the ACE2 receptor
Nature 581:215–220.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2180-5
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Larrimore KE
2. Kazan IC
3. Kannan L
4. Kendle RP
5. Jamal T
6. Barcus M
7. Bolia A
8. Brimijoin S
9. Zhan C-G
10. Ozkan SB
11. Mor TS
(2017) Plant-expressed cocaine hydrolase variants of butyrylcholinesterase exhibit altered allosteric effects of cholinesterase activity and increased inhibitor sensitivity
Scientific Reports 7:10419.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10571-z
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2017) Potts Hamiltonian models of protein co-variation, free energy landscapes, and evolutionary fitness
Current Opinion in Structural Biology 43:55–62.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2016.11.004
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Liu Y
2. Bahar I
(2012) Sequence evolution correlates with structural dynamics
Molecular Biology and Evolution 29:2253–2263.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss097
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Liu L
2. Tamura K
3. Sanderford M
4. Gray VE
5. Kumar S
(2016) A molecular evolutionary reference for the human variome
Molecular Biology and Evolution 33:245–254.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv198
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Liu X
2. Liu X
3. Zhou J
4. Dong Y
5. Jiang W
6. Jiang W
(2022) Rampant C-to-U deamination accounts for the intrinsically high mutation rate in SARS-CoV-2 spike gene
RNA 28:917–926.

https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.079160.122
- Google Scholar
1. Ma B
2. Nussinov R
(2016) Conformational footprints
Nature Chemical Biology 12:890–891.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.2212
- Google Scholar
(2006) Evolutionary conservation of protein backbone flexibility
Journal of Molecular Evolution 63:448–457.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-005-0209-x
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2008) Evolutionary conservation of protein vibrational dynamics
Gene 422:7–13.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2008.06.002
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Maher MC
2. Bartha I
3. Weaver S
4. di Iulio J
5. Ferri E
6. Soriaga L
7. Lempp FA
8. Hie BL
9. Bryson B
10. Berger B
11. Robertson DL
12. Snell G
13. Corti D
14. Virgin HW
15. Kosakovsky Pond SL
16. Telenti A
(2022) Predicting the mutational drivers of future SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern
Science Translational Medicine 14:eabk3445.

https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abk3445
- Google Scholar
(2015) ff14SB: improving the accuracy of protein side chain and backbone parameters from ff99SB
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 11:3696–3713.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00255
- Google Scholar
1. Majumder S
2. Chaudhuri D
3. Datta J
4. Giri K
(2021) Exploring the intrinsic dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV spike glycoprotein through normal mode analysis using anisotropic network model
Journal of Molecular Graphics & Modelling 102:107778.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2020.107778
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2023) The evolution of SARS-CoV-2
Nature Reviews Microbiology 21:361–379.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-023-00878-2
- Google Scholar
1. Menni C
2. Valdes AM
3. Polidori L
4. Antonelli M
5. Penamakuri S
6. Nogal A
7. Louca P
8. May A
9. Figueiredo JC
10. Hu C
11. Molteni E
12. Canas L
13. Österdahl MF
14. Modat M
15. Sudre CH
16. Fox B
17. Hammers A
18. Wolf J
19. Capdevila J
20. Chan AT
21. David SP
22. Steves CJ
23. Ourselin S
24. Spector TD
(2022) Symptom prevalence, duration, and risk of hospital admission in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during periods of omicron and delta variant dominance: a prospective observational study from the ZOE COVID Study
The Lancet 399:1618–1624.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00327-0
- Google Scholar
1. Mikulska-Ruminska K
2. Shrivastava I
3. Krieger J
4. Zhang S
5. Li H
6. Bayır H
7. Wenzel SE
8. VanDemark AP
9. Kagan VE
10. Bahar I
(2019) Characterization of differential dynamics, specificity, and allostery of lipoxygenase family members
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 59:2496–2508.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00006
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Millet JK
2. Whittaker GR
(2014) Host cell entry of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus after two-step, furin-mediated activation of the spike protein
PNAS 111:15214–15219.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407087111
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Millet JK
2. Whittaker GR
(2015) Host cell proteases: Critical determinants of coronavirus tropism and pathogenesis
Virus Research 202:120–134.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2014.11.021
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Mishra SK
2. Jernigan RL
(2018) Protein dynamic communities from elastic network models align closely to the communities defined by molecular dynamics
PLOS ONE 13:e0199225.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199225
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Modi T
2. Ozkan SB
(2018) Mutations utilize dynamic allostery to confer resistance in TEM-1 β-lactamase
International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19:3808.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19123808
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Modi T
2. Campitelli P
3. Kazan IC
4. Ozkan SB
(2021a) Protein folding stability and binding interactions through the lens of evolution: a dynamical perspective
Current Opinion in Structural Biology 66:207–215.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2020.11.007
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021b) Hinge-shift mechanism as a protein design principle for the evolution of β-lactamases from substrate promiscuity to specificity
Nature Communications 12:1852.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22089-0
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Moulana A
2. Dupic T
3. Phillips AM
4. Chang J
5. Nieves S
6. Roffler AA
7. Greaney AJ
8. Starr TN
9. Bloom JD
10. Desai MM
(2022) Compensatory epistasis maintains ACE2 affinity in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1
Nature Communications 13:7011.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34506-z
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Moulana A
2. Dupic T
3. Phillips AM
4. Chang J
5. Roffler AA
6. Greaney AJ
7. Starr TN
8. Bloom JD
9. Desai MM
(2023) The landscape of antibody binding affinity in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 evolution
eLife 12:e83442.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83442
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Neher RA
(2022) Contributions of adaptation and purifying selection to SARS-CoV-2 evolution
Virus Evolution 8:veac113.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/veac113
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2013) Structural dynamics flexibility informs function and evolution at a proteome scale
Evolutionary Applications 6:423–433.

https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12052
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Nguyen HL
2. Lan PD
3. Thai NQ
4. Nissley DA
5. O’Brien EP
6. Li MS
(2020) Does SARS-CoV-2 bind to human ACE2 More strongly than does SARS-CoV?
The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B 124:7336–7347.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.0c04511
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
1. Nielsen BF
2. Li Y
3. Sneppen K
4. Simonsen L
5. Viboud C
6. Levin SA
7. Grenfell BT
(2022) Immune heterogeneity and epistasis explain punctuated evolution of SARS-CoV-2
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.27.22278129
- Google Scholar
1. Nussinov R
2. Tsai CJ
(2013) Allostery in disease and in drug discovery
Cell 153:293–305.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.034
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2016) Biophysical and computational methods to analyze amino acid interaction networks in proteins
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 14:245–251.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2016.06.002
- Google Scholar
1. Ose NJ
2. Butler BM
3. Kumar A
4. Kazan IC
5. Sanderford M
6. Kumar S
7. Ozkan SB
(2022a) Dynamic coupling of residues within proteins as a mechanistic foundation of many enigmatic pathogenic missense variants
PLOS Computational Biology 18:e1010006.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010006
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Ose NJ
2. Campitelli P
3. Patel RP
4. Ozkan SB
5. Kumar S
(2022b) Protein dynamics provide mechanistic insights about the epistatic relationships among highly observed potentially adaptive missense variants
Biophysical Journal 121:456a.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2021.11.488
- Google Scholar
1. Otten R
2. Liu L
3. Kenner LR
4. Clarkson MW
5. Mavor D
6. Tawfik DS
7. Kern D
8. Fraser JS
(2018) Rescue of conformational dynamics in enzyme catalysis by directed evolution
Nature Communications 9:1314.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03562-9
- Google Scholar
Software
1. Ozkan SB
(2024) Dfi-DCI, version swh:1:rev:7a3a54bbe03e8356036bdb164ad1b2c01c103cc5
Software Heritage.

https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:9f38b3c516e31bcfe8b796f7de4082eec6ecba4c;origin=https://github.com/SBOZKAN/DFI-DCI;visit=swh:1:snp:d723c9bc100d4a98dab72447e9b39707e2e33f9b;anchor=swh:1:rev:7a3a54bbe03e8356036bdb164ad1b2c01c103cc5
1. Ozono S
2. Zhang Y
3. Ode H
4. Sano K
5. Tan TS
6. Imai K
7. Miyoshi K
8. Kishigami S
9. Ueno T
10. Iwatani Y
11. Suzuki T
12. Tokunaga K
(2021) SARS-CoV-2 D614G spike mutation increases entry efficiency with enhanced ACE2-binding affinity
Nature Communications 12:848.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21118-2
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Pearlman DA
2. Case DA
3. Caldwell JW
4. Ross WS
5. Cheatham TE
6. DeBolt S
7. Ferguson D
8. Seibel G
9. Kollman P
(1995) AMBER, a package of computer programs for applying molecular mechanics, normal mode analysis, molecular dynamics and free energy calculations to simulate the structural and energetic properties of molecules
Computer Physics Communications 91:1–41.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(95)00041-D
- Google Scholar
1. Peters AD
2. Lively CM
(1999) The red queen and fluctuating epistasis: a population genetic analysis of antagonistic coevolution
The American Naturalist 154:393–405.

https://doi.org/10.1086/303247
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2022) Molecular dynamics studies reveal structural and functional features of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
BioEssays 44:e2200060.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202200060
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
1. Qu P
2. Faraone JN
3. Evans JP
4. Zheng YM
5. Carlin C
6. Anghelina M
7. Stevens P
8. Fernandez S
9. Jones D
10. Panchal A
11. Saif LJ
12. Oltz EM
13. Xu K
14. Gumina RJ
15. Liu SL
(2023) Extraordinary evasion of neutralizing antibody response by omicron XBB.1.5, CH.1.1 and CA.3.1 variants
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.16.524244
- Google Scholar
1. Raghuvamsi PV
2. Tulsian NK
3. Samsudin F
4. Qian X
5. Purushotorman K
6. Yue G
7. Kozma MM
8. Hwa WY
9. Lescar J
10. Bond PJ
11. MacAry PA
12. Anand GS
(2021) SARS-CoV-2 S protein:ACE2 interaction reveals novel allosteric targets
eLife 10:e63646.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63646
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Ramarao-Milne P
2. Jain Y
3. Sng LMF
4. Hosking B
5. Lee C
6. Bayat A
7. Kuiper M
8. Wilson LOW
9. Twine NA
10. Bauer DC
(2022) Data-driven platform for identifying variants of interest in COVID-19 virus
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 20:2942–2950.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.06.005
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Rehman SU
2. Shafique L
3. Ihsan A
4. Liu Q
(2020) Evolutionary trajectory for the emergence of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2
Pathogens 9:240.

https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9030240
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Rizzato F
2. Coucke A
3. de Leonardis E
4. Barton JP
5. Tubiana J
6. Monasson R
7. Cocco S
(2020) Inference of compressed Potts graphical models
Physical Review. E 101:012309.

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.101.012309
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Rochman ND
2. Wolf YI
3. Faure G
4. Mutz P
5. Zhang F
6. Koonin EV
(2021) Ongoing global and regional adaptive evolution of SARS-CoV-2
PNAS 118:e2104241118.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2104241118
- Google Scholar
1. Rochman ND
2. Faure G
3. Wolf YI
4. Freddolino PL
5. Zhang F
6. Koonin EV
(2022) Epistasis at the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain interface and the propitiously boring implications for vaccine escape
mBio 13:e0013522.

https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00135-22
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2022) Epistatic models predict mutable sites in SARS-CoV-2 proteins and epitopes
PNAS 119:e2113118119.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113118119
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2019) Modular epistasis and the compensatory evolution of gene deletion mutants
PLOS Genetics 15:e1007958.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007958
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Saavedra HG
2. Wrabl JO
3. Anderson JA
4. Li J
5. Hilser VJ
(2018) Dynamic allostery can drive cold adaptation in enzymes
Nature 558:324–328.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0183-2
- Google Scholar
1. Saputri DS
2. Li S
3. van Eerden FJ
4. Rozewicki J
5. Xu Z
6. Ismanto HS
7. Davila A
8. Teraguchi S
9. Katoh K
10. Standley DM
(2020) Flexible, functional, and familiar: characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein evolution
Frontiers in Microbiology 11:2112.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.02112
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Sawle L
2. Ghosh K
(2016) Convergence of molecular dynamics simulation of protein native states: feasibility vs self-consistency dilemma
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 12:861–869.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00999
- Google Scholar
1. Sekhar A
2. Kay LE
(2019) An NMR view of protein dynamics in health and disease
Annual Review of Biophysics 48:297–319.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-052118-115647
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Shang J
2. Wan Y
3. Luo C
4. Ye G
5. Geng Q
6. Auerbach A
7. Li F
(2020) Cell entry mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2
PNAS 117:11727–11734.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003138117
- Google Scholar
(2021) SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness
The Lancet 397:2461–2462.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01358-1
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Shimagaki K
2. Weigt M
(2019) Selection of sequence motifs and generative Hopfield-Potts models for protein families
Physical Review E 100:032128.

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.100.032128
- Google Scholar
Preprint
(2022) Molecular dynamics of spike variants in the locked conformation: RBD interfaces, fatty acid binding and furin cleavage sites
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.06.490927
- Google Scholar
1. Singh D
2. Yi SV
(2021) On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2
Experimental & Molecular Medicine 53:537–547.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z
- Google Scholar
1. Socher E
2. Conrad M
3. Heger L
4. Paulsen F
5. Sticht H
6. Zunke F
7. Arnold P
(2021) Mutations in the B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduce receptor-binding affinity and induce a flexible link to the fusion peptide
Biomedicines 9:525.

https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9050525
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) Allosteric cross-talk among spike’s receptor-binding domain mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 South African variant triggers an effective hijacking of human cell receptor
The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 12:5987–5993.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01415
- Google Scholar
1. Starr TN
2. Greaney AJ
3. Hannon WW
4. Loes AN
5. Hauser K
6. Dillen JR
7. Ferri E
8. Farrell AG
9. Dadonaite B
10. McCallum M
11. Matreyek KA
12. Corti D
13. Veesler D
14. Snell G
15. Bloom JD
(2022a) Shifting mutational constraints in the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain during viral evolution
Science 377:420–424.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo7896
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Starr TN
2. Greaney AJ
3. Stewart CM
4. Walls AC
5. Hannon WW
6. Veesler D
7. Bloom JD
(2022b) Deep mutational scans for ACE2 binding, RBD expression, and antibody escape in the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 receptor-binding domains
PLOS Pathogens 18:e1010951.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010951
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Starr TN
2. Zepeda SK
3. Walls AC
4. Greaney AJ
5. Alkhovsky S
6. Veesler D
7. Bloom JD
(2022c) ACE2 binding is an ancestral and evolvable trait of sarbecoviruses
Nature 603:913–918.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04464-z
- Google Scholar
1. Steinhauer DA
(1999) Role of hemagglutinin cleavage for the pathogenicity of influenza virus
Virology 258:1–20.

https://doi.org/10.1006/viro.1999.9716
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Stevens AO
2. Kazan IC
3. Ozkan B
4. He Y
(2022) Investigating the allosteric response of the PICK1 PDZ domain to different ligands with all-atom simulations
Protein Science 31:e4474.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.4474
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Sun Y
2. Kollman PA
(1995) Hydrophobic solvation of methane and nonbond parameters of the TIP3P water model
Journal of Computational Chemistry 16:1164–1169.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.540160910
- Google Scholar
(1998) Comparison of simulated and experimentally determined dynamics for a variant of the Lacl DNA-binding domain, Nlac-P
Biophysical Journal 74:413–421.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3495(98)77798-7
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Sztain T
2. Ahn S-H
3. Bogetti AT
4. Casalino L
5. Goldsmith JA
6. Seitz E
7. McCool RS
8. Kearns FL
9. Acosta-Reyes F
10. Maji S
11. Mashayekhi G
12. McCammon JA
13. Ourmazd A
14. Frank J
15. McLellan JS
16. Chong LT
17. Amaro RE
(2021) A glycan gate controls opening of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
Nature Chemistry 13:963–968.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-021-00758-3
- Google Scholar
1. Tan ZW
2. Tee WV
3. Samsudin F
4. Guarnera E
5. Bond PJ
6. Berezovsky IN
(2022) Allosteric perspective on the mutability and druggability of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein
Structure 30:590–607.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2021.12.011
- Google Scholar
1. Tang X
2. Wu C
3. Li X
4. Song Y
5. Yao X
6. Wu X
7. Duan Y
8. Zhang H
9. Wang Y
10. Qian Z
11. Cui J
12. Lu J
(2020) On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2
National Science Review 7:1012–1023.

https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036
- Google Scholar
1. Tay JH
2. Porter AF
3. Wirth W
4. Duchene S
(2022) The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is driven by acceleration of the substitution rate
Molecular Biology and Evolution 39:msac013.

https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msac013
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
(2021a) Computational analysis of the effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant omicron spike protein mutations on dynamics, ACE2 binding and propensity for immune escape
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.14.472622
- Google Scholar
(2021b) Modelling conformational state dynamics and its role on infection for SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein variants
PLOS Computational Biology 17:e1009286.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009286
- Google Scholar
1. Thye AYK
2. Law JWF
3. Pusparajah P
4. Letchumanan V
5. Chan KG
6. Lee LH
(2021) Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOCs): an impending global crisis
Biomedicines 9:1303.

https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9101303
- Google Scholar
(2022) Hospital admission and emergency care attendance risk for SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) compared with alpha (B.1.1.7) variants of concern: a cohort study
The Lancet Infectious Diseases 22:35–42.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00475-8
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Verkhivker G
(2022) Allosteric determinants of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein binding with nanobodies: examining mechanisms of mutational escape and sensitivity of the omicron variant
International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23:2172.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23042172
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Walls AC
2. Park YJ
3. Tortorici MA
4. Wall A
5. McGuire AT
6. Veesler D
(2020) Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein
Cell 181:281–292.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Wang Q
2. Guo Y
3. Iketani S
4. Nair MS
5. Li Z
6. Mohri H
7. Wang M
8. Yu J
9. Bowen AD
10. Chang JY
11. Shah JG
12. Nguyen N
13. Chen Z
14. Meyers K
15. Yin MT
16. Sobieszczyk ME
17. Sheng Z
18. Huang Y
19. Liu L
20. Ho DD
(2022a) Antibody evasion by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5
Nature 608:603–608.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05053-w
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
1. Wang Q
2. Iketani S
3. Li Z
4. Liu L
5. Guo Y
6. Huang Y
7. Bowen AD
8. Liu M
9. Wang M
10. Yu J
11. Valdez R
12. Lauring AS
13. Sheng Z
14. Wang HH
15. Gordon A
16. Liu L
17. Ho DD
(2022b) Alarming antibody evasion properties of rising SARS-CoV-2 BQ and XBB subvariants
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.23.517532
- Google Scholar
1. Weisblum Y
2. Schmidt F
3. Zhang F
4. DaSilva J
5. Poston D
6. Lorenzi JC
7. Muecksch F
8. Rutkowska M
9. Hoffmann H-H
10. Michailidis E
11. Gaebler C
12. Agudelo M
13. Cho A
14. Wang Z
15. Gazumyan A
16. Cipolla M
17. Luchsinger L
18. Hillyer CD
19. Caskey M
20. Robbiani DF
21. Rice CM
22. Nussenzweig MC
23. Hatziioannou T
24. Bieniasz PD
(2020) Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants
eLife 9:e61312.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61312
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Witte L
2. Baharani VA
3. Schmidt F
4. Wang Z
5. Cho A
6. Raspe R
7. Guzman-Cardozo C
8. Muecksch F
9. Canis M
10. Park DJ
11. Gaebler C
12. Caskey M
13. Nussenzweig MC
14. Hatziioannou T
15. Bieniasz PD
(2023) Epistasis lowers the genetic barrier to SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody escape
Nature Communications 14:302.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-35927-0
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Wrapp D
2. Wang N
3. Corbett KS
4. Goldsmith JA
5. Hsieh CL
6. Abiona O
7. Graham BS
8. McLellan JS
(2020) Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation
Science 367:1260–1263.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Wrobel AG
2. Benton DJ
3. Xu P
4. Roustan C
5. Martin SR
6. Rosenthal PB
7. Skehel JJ
8. Gamblin SJ
(2020) SARS-CoV-2 and bat RaTG13 spike glycoprotein structures inform on virus evolution and furin-cleavage effects
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 27:763–767.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0468-7
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Wu L
2. Zhou L
3. Mo M
4. Liu T
5. Wu C
6. Gong C
7. Lu K
8. Gong L
9. Zhu W
10. Xu Z
(2022) SARS-CoV-2 Omicron RBD shows weaker binding affinity than the currently dominant Delta variant to human ACE2
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 7:8.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-021-00863-2
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Xue Q
2. Liu X
3. Pan W
4. Zhang A
5. Fu J
6. Jiang G
(2022) Computational insights into the allosteric effect and dynamic structural features of the SARS-COV-2 spike protein
Chemistry 28:e202104215.

https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202104215
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Yang QE
2. MacLean C
3. Papkou A
4. Pritchard M
5. Powell L
6. Thomas D
7. Andrey DO
8. Li M
9. Spiller B
10. Yang W
11. Walsh TR
(2020) Compensatory mutations modulate the competitiveness and dynamics of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance in Escherichia coli clones
The ISME Journal 14:861–865.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0578-6
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
1. Yue C
2. Song W
3. Wang L
4. Jian F
5. Chen X
6. Gao F
7. Shen Z
8. Wang Y
9. Wang X
10. Cao Y
(2023) Enhanced transmissibility of XBB.1.5 is contributed by both strong ACE2 binding and antibody evasion
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.03.522427
- Google Scholar
1. Yurkovetskiy L
2. Wang X
3. Pascal KE
4. Tomkins-Tinch C
5. Nyalile TP
6. Wang Y
7. Baum A
8. Diehl WE
9. Dauphin A
10. Carbone C
11. Veinotte K
12. Egri SB
13. Schaffner SF
14. Lemieux JE
15. Munro JB
16. Rafique A
17. Barve A
18. Sabeti PC
19. Kyratsous CA
20. Dudkina NV
21. Shen K
22. Luban J
(2020) Structural and functional analysis of the D614G SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variant
Cell 183:739–751.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.032
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2020) Global analysis of more than 50,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomes reveals epistasis between eight viral genes
PNAS 117:31519–31526.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012331117
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Zhang J
2. Cai Y
3. Xiao T
4. Lu J
5. Peng H
6. Sterling SM
7. Walsh RM Jr
8. Rits-Volloch S
9. Zhu H
10. Woosley AN
11. Yang W
12. Sliz P
13. Chen B
(2021) Structural impact on SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by D614G substitution
Science 372:525–530.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf2303
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Zhou T
2. Tsybovsky Y
3. Gorman J
4. Rapp M
5. Cerutti G
6. Chuang GY
7. Katsamba PS
8. Sampson JM
9. Schön A
10. Bimela J
11. Boyington JC
12. Nazzari A
13. Olia AS
14. Shi W
15. Sastry M
16. Stephens T
17. Stuckey J
18. Teng IT
19. Wang P
20. Wang S
21. Zhang B
22. Friesner RA
23. Ho DD
24. Mascola JR
25. Shapiro L
26. Kwong PD
(2020) Cryo-EM structures of SARS-CoV-2 spike without and with ACE2 reveal a pH-dependent switch to mediate endosomal positioning of receptor-binding domains
Cell Host & Microbe 28:867–879.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2020.11.004
- PubMed
- Google Scholar

Article and author information

Author details

Nicholas James Ose

Department of Physics and Center for Biological Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States

Contribution
Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2194-5199
Paul Campitelli

Department of Physics and Center for Biological Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States

Contribution
Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5620-609X
Tushar Modi

Department of Physics and Center for Biological Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States

Contribution
Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9483-9170
I Can Kazan

Department of Physics and Center for Biological Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States

Contribution
Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2593-4179
Sudhir Kumar
1. Institute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, United States
2. Department of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, United States
3. Center for Genomic Medicine Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Contribution
Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

For correspondence
s.kumar@temple.edu

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9918-8212
Sefika Banu Ozkan

Department of Physics and Center for Biological Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States

Contribution
Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

For correspondence
banu.ozkan@asu.edu

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9351-3758

Funding

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (AWD00034439)

Nicholas James Ose
Paul Campitelli
Tushar Modi
I Can Kazan

National Science Foundation (1715591)

Sefika Banu Ozkan

National Science Foundation (1901709)

Sefika Banu Ozkan

National Science Foundation (GCR 1934848)

Sudhir Kumar

National Institutes of Health (R01GM147635-01)

Sefika Banu Ozkan

National Institutes of Health (GM139540)

Sudhir Kumar

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

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided to NJO, PC, TM, and ICK by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (award number AWD00034439) and to SBO by the National Science Foundation (award numbers: 1715591 and 1901709) and the National Institutes of Health R01GM147635-01. SK acknowledges the National Science Foundation (GCR 1934848) and the National Institutes of Health (GM139540) grants.

Version history

Sent for peer review: August 29, 2023
Preprint posted: September 15, 2023
Reviewed Preprint version 1: November 6, 2023
Reviewed Preprint version 2: April 3, 2024
Version of Record published: May 7, 2024

Cite all versions

You can cite all versions using the DOI https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92063. This DOI represents all versions, and will always resolve to the latest one.

Copyright

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

Metrics

420

views
43

downloads
3

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)

Mendeley

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

Nicholas James Ose
Paul Campitelli
Tushar Modi
I Can Kazan
Sudhir Kumar
Sefika Banu Ozkan

(2024)

Some mechanistic underpinnings of molecular adaptations of SARS-COV-2 spike protein by integrating candidate adaptive polymorphisms with protein dynamics

eLife 12:RP92063.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92063.3