2023
DOI: 10.1038/s41565-023-01536-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Single-molecule force stability of the SARS-CoV-2–ACE2 interface in variants-of-concern

Magnus S. Bauer,
Sophia Gruber,
Adina Hausch
et al.
Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 91 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lastly, leveraging a technique developed by our group we employed generalized-correlation-based Dynamic Network Analysis 45 to derive relative binding strengths. 51 The results, displayed in Fig. 2F and Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Lastly, leveraging a technique developed by our group we employed generalized-correlation-based Dynamic Network Analysis 45 to derive relative binding strengths. 51 The results, displayed in Fig. 2F and Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…For SARS-CoV-2, which may experience mechanical force during human sneezing and coughing, this technique mimics the external force from the dynamic airway on the protein during measurement. Thus, SMFS manipulation on the spike protein/RBD-ACE2 complex is physiologically relevant and has been studied [39]. For example, several groups have used SMFS to study the binding strength between the RBD and ACE2, especially for the various viral variants [40].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quantification of morphological changes in the receptor binding motif (RBM) during adsorption is a crucial step to determining the difference in function of the protein due to structural deformation. Figure shows the relationship between the perpendicular and parallel radius of gyration ( R g⊥ and R g∥ , respectively) of the RBM-inanimate (for both groups, as defined in Tables S7 and S8) and RBM-biological (both groups and the ACE2) and allows us a direct comparison among them for each VoC. The interfaces with the PBLs are roughly within the semiflexible polymer regime ( R g / R g 2 < 0.32 ). , In contrast, the biological interface RBM-ACE2 shows globular behavior. Although both hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces are in the same flexibility regime, we observe a difference in R g∥ between group 1 and group 2, due to the initial conformation of the residues in group 2, which are slightly more elongated (see Figure c,f for initial structures between both groups).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%