2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.14.422634
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A blueprint for high affinity SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors from activity-based compound library screening guided by analysis of protein dynamics

Abstract: The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus outbreak continues to spread at a rapid rate worldwide. The main protease (Mpro) is an attractive target for anti-COVID-19 agents. Unfortunately, unexpected difficulties have been encountered in the design of specific inhibitors. Here, by analyzing an ensemble of ~30,000 SARS-CoV-2 Mpro conformations from crystallographic studies and molecular simulations, we show that small structural variations in the binding site dramatically impact ligand binding properties. Hence, traditional dr… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 120 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The two residues with the highest interaction frequencies from this pocket were M49 (65%) and H164 (58%) which formed hydrophobic and weak hydrogen bond interactions, while M165 (47%) and Q189 (43%) interacted mainly by hydrophobic contacts with the ligands (Figure 3B and 4A). The high frequency of interactions with S1 and S2 residues showed that most of the ligands fill one or both pockets, conserving a more polar profile for S1, whereas the S2 retained a more aromatic and aliphatic profile as observed previously with the SARS-CoV Mpro [118] and in other studies with SARS-CoV-2 Mpro [119,120].…”
Section: Available Mpro Structures Show Conserved Conformation Protein-ligand Interactions and Location Of Waters Moleculessupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The two residues with the highest interaction frequencies from this pocket were M49 (65%) and H164 (58%) which formed hydrophobic and weak hydrogen bond interactions, while M165 (47%) and Q189 (43%) interacted mainly by hydrophobic contacts with the ligands (Figure 3B and 4A). The high frequency of interactions with S1 and S2 residues showed that most of the ligands fill one or both pockets, conserving a more polar profile for S1, whereas the S2 retained a more aromatic and aliphatic profile as observed previously with the SARS-CoV Mpro [118] and in other studies with SARS-CoV-2 Mpro [119,120].…”
Section: Available Mpro Structures Show Conserved Conformation Protein-ligand Interactions and Location Of Waters Moleculessupporting
confidence: 77%