2021
DOI: 10.1039/d1cc02305e
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ACE2 glycans preferentially interact with SARS-CoV-2 over SARS-CoV

Abstract: We report a distinct difference in the interactions of the glycans of the host-cell receptor, ACE2, with SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV S-protein receptor-binding domains (RBDs). Our analysis demonstrates that the ACE2...

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
54
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
(44 reference statements)
1
54
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Mutations that removed glycosylation in N432 and N546 were not favoured (Figure S6b), possibly because they were distant from protein interaction sites. N90, N103, and N322-glycans hover over a fraction of the binding surface [ 28 , 29 ]. Mutations that remove glycosylation at these glycan sites were significantly enriched (Figure 2 d,e): the fitness scores of both asparagine (N) and threonine (T)/serine(S) of the three glycan sites were positive (see Supplementary Figure 6b), indicating that de-glycosylation boosts binding by reducing steric strain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Mutations that removed glycosylation in N432 and N546 were not favoured (Figure S6b), possibly because they were distant from protein interaction sites. N90, N103, and N322-glycans hover over a fraction of the binding surface [ 28 , 29 ]. Mutations that remove glycosylation at these glycan sites were significantly enriched (Figure 2 d,e): the fitness scores of both asparagine (N) and threonine (T)/serine(S) of the three glycan sites were positive (see Supplementary Figure 6b), indicating that de-glycosylation boosts binding by reducing steric strain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Removing these two glycans increased ACE2-spike binding affinity. Most N90 mutations were enriching possibly because the N90-glycan shielded ACE2 from RBD binding [ 28 ]. Although N103 and N322 glycosylation sites are not on the ACE2-RBD binding interface, glycans formed at these sites orient toward RBD [ 28 , 29 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…S8 ), perhaps resulting in intracellular concentrations insufficient to saturate the DNA-binding site on our lacZ reporter. Another possible explanation (these are not mutually exclusive) lies in the fact that both the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and ACE2 are glycosylated in mammalian cells ( 9 , 60 ), with some studies suggesting that glycan-side chain interactions may be important in stabilizing the RBD-ACE2 interaction ( 61 , 62 ). Thus, the interaction detected in our B2H system could be compromised by the lack of mammalian-like N- and O-glycosylation in E. coli ( 63 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the very first step, the Spike protein of SARS‐CoV‐2 binds to the human ACE2 receptor. [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ] The spike protein has a trimeric structure and each monomer is formed by several structural domains (Figure 1a ). [ 10 ] During the virus attachment stage, the receptor binding domain (RBD) of one monomer gets activated and attaches to the human ACE2 receptor followed by membrane fusion and internalization of genetic material.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%