Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39590339›Full record

ArticleCurrent issues in molecular biology2024

Benchmark Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Mutants' Immune Escape with 2B04 Murine Antibody: A Step Towards Unraveling a Larger Picture.

Karina Kapusta, Allyson McGowan, Santanu Banerjee, Jing Wang, Wojciech Kolodziejczyk, Jerzy Leszczynski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current issues in molecular biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Karina KapustaDepartment of Chemistry and Physics, Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, MS 39174, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8466-4098
Allyson McGowanDepartment of Chemistry and Physics, Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, MS 39174, USA.
Santanu BanerjeeDepartment of Chemistry and Physics, Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, MS 39174, USA.
Jing WangDepartment of Chemistry, Physics and Atmospheric Sciences, Jackson State University, Jackson, MS 39217, USA.
Wojciech KolodziejczykDepartment of Chemistry, Physics and Atmospheric Sciences, Jackson State University, Jackson, MS 39217, USA.
Jerzy LeszczynskiDepartment of Chemistry, Physics and Atmospheric Sciences, Jackson State University, Jackson, MS 39217, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5290-6136

Funding

Training and Mentoring Core P20GM103476 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI · PI Yufeng Zheng · 2012 to 2026
$60.2M
Mississippi INBRE P20GM103476NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103476NSF 1826699NSF OIA-2414444NSF OIA-2414445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even though COVID-19 is no longer the primary focus of the global scientific community, its high mutation rate (nearly 30 substitutions per year) poses a threat of a potential comeback. Effective vaccines have been developed and administered to the population, ending the pandemic. Nonetheless, reinfection by newly emerging subvariants, particularly the latest JN.1 strain, remains common. The rapid mutation of this virus demands a fast response from the scientific community in case of an emergency. While the immune escape of earlier variants was extensively investigated, one still needs a comprehensive understanding of how specific mutations, especially in the newest subvariants, influence the antigenic escape of the pathogen. Here, we tested comprehensive in silico approaches to identify methods for fast and accurate prediction of antibody neutralization by various mutants. As a benchmark, we modeled the complexes of the murine antibody 2B04, which neutralizes infection by preventing the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein's association with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE2). Complexes with the wild-type, B.1.1.7 Alpha, and B.1.427/429 Epsilon SARS-CoV-2 variants were used as positive controls, while complexes with the B.1.351 Beta, P.1 Gamma, B.1.617.2 Delta, B.1.617.1 Kappa, BA.1 Omicron, and the newest JN.1 Omicron variants were used as decoys. Three essentially different algorithms were employed: forced placement based on a template, followed by two steps of extended molecular dynamics simulations; protein-protein docking utilizing PIPER (an FFT-based method extended for use with pairwise interaction potentials); and the AlphaFold 3.0 model for complex structure prediction. Homology modeling was used to assess the 3D structure of the newly emerged JN.1 Omicron subvariant, whose crystallographic structure is not yet available in the Protein Database. After a careful comparison of these three approaches, we were able to identify the pros and cons of each method. Protein-protein docking yielded two false-positive results, while manual placement reinforced by molecular dynamics produced one false positive and one false negative. In contrast, AlphaFold resulted in only one doubtful result and a higher overall accuracy-to-time ratio. The reasons for inaccuracies and potential pitfalls of various approaches are carefully explained. In addition to a comparative analysis of methods, some mechanisms of immune escape are elucidated herein. This provides a critical foundation for improving the predictive accuracy of vaccine efficacy against new viral subvariants, introducing accurate methodologies, and pinpointing potential challenges.

Indexed as

AlphaFoldbenchmarkhomology modelingimmune escapemolecular dynamicsmutationsprotein–protein dockingSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID39590339
PMCPMC11592782

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.