Functional and antigenic characterization of SARS-CoV-2 spike fusion peptide by deep mutational scanning

Lei, Ruipeng; Qing, Enya; Odle, Abby; Yuan, Meng; Gunawardene, Chaminda D.; Tan, Timothy J. C.; So, Natalie; Ouyang, Wenhao O.; Wilson, Ian A.; Gallagher, Tom; Perlman, Stanley; Wu, Nicholas C.; Wong, Lok-Yin Roy

doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48104-8

Download PDF

Article
Open access
Published: 14 May 2024

Functional and antigenic characterization of SARS-CoV-2 spike fusion peptide by deep mutational scanning

Nature Communications volume 15, Article number: 4056 (2024) Cite this article

9 Altmetric
Metrics details

Subjects

Abstract

The fusion peptide of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is functionally important for membrane fusion during virus entry and is part of a broadly neutralizing epitope. However, sequence determinants at the fusion peptide and its adjacent regions for pathogenicity and antigenicity remain elusive. In this study, we perform a series of deep mutational scanning (DMS) experiments on an S2 region spanning the fusion peptide of authentic SARS-CoV-2 in different cell lines and in the presence of broadly neutralizing antibodies. We identify mutations at residue 813 of the spike protein that reduced TMPRSS2-mediated entry with decreased virulence. In addition, we show that an F823Y mutation, present in bat betacoronavirus HKU9 spike protein, confers resistance to broadly neutralizing antibodies. Our findings provide mechanistic insights into SARS-CoV-2 pathogenicity and also highlight a potential challenge in developing broadly protective S2-based coronavirus vaccines.

Structural dynamics in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein

Article Open access 14 March 2023

High-throughput identification of prefusion-stabilizing mutations in SARS-CoV-2 spike

Article Open access 10 April 2023

Unraveling the stability landscape of mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain

Article Open access 28 April 2021

Introduction

While the world is slowly returning to normal from the COVID-19 pandemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to circulate in the human population. Due to the importance of COVID-19 vaccine development, spike (S) is the most studied SARS-CoV-2 protein. S facilitates virus entry by binding to the host receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and mediates virus-host membrane fusion by undergoing drastic conformational changes¹. Membrane fusion is activated by the cleavage of the S2’ site in the S2 domain by either TMPRSS2 at the cell surface or cathepsins in the endosome^2,3,4. With cleavage of the S2’ site, the fusion peptide is exposed and inserted into the membrane of the host cell⁵. Subsequently, the S2 domain rearranges into a stable six-helix bundle with a long central three-stranded coiled coil to complete membrane fusion^6,7. Although early SARS-CoV-2 variants enter cells mainly by TMPRSS2-mediated cleavage, some Omicron variants have been shown to utilize cathepsin-mediated endosomal entry^8,9,10,11. This shift of cell entry pathway may associate with changes in cellular tropism and reduction in virulence^8,9. As a result, studying the determinants of SARS-CoV-2 membrane fusion has important public health implications.

Residues 816–834 of the S protein, which is located immediately downstream of the S2’ cleavage site at Arg815/Ser816¹², have generally been recognized as the bona fide SARS-CoV-2 fusion peptide (bFP, residues 816–834)^13,14,15. Nevertheless, a recent cryo-EM structure of the postfusion SARS-CoV-2 S in a lipid bilayer membrane showed that the internal fusion peptide (iFP, residues 867–909) inserted into the membrane, whereas the bFP was not resolved¹⁶. This observation appears to challenge the functional importance of bFP but also indicates that additional analysis of the fusion peptide and fusion mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 S is warranted.

Neutralizing antibodies targeting the functionally important S2 domain have been isolated from convalescent individuals^{17,18,19,20,21}. Unlike antibodies to the immunodominant receptor-binding domain (RBD) of S1^22,23, S2 antibodies typically have very broad cross-reactivity due to high S2 sequence conservation^{17,18,19,20,21}. Neutralizing antibodies to an epitope that spans the S2’ cleavage site and the bFP can cross-react with diverse coronavirus strains from all four genera (α, β, γ, and δ)^17,20,21,24. These broadly neutralizing antibodies provide important insights into the development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine. However, comprehensive assessments of the genetic barrier for resistance to bFP antibodies have not been completed. Relatedly, the mutational tolerance of the SARS-CoV-2 bFP is largely elusive.

Deep mutational scanning, which combines saturation mutagenesis and next-generation sequencing, allows the phenotypes of many mutations to be measured in parallel. Deep mutational scanning has been applied to study the mutational fitness effects of various medically important RNA viruses, including influenza virus^25,26, human immunodeficiency virus²⁷, hepatitis C virus²⁸, and Zika virus²⁹. All of these viruses can be evaluated using efficient plasmid-based reverse genetic systems, which are prerequisites for applying deep mutational scanning to study viral replication fitness. At the same time, most, if not all, deep mutational scanning studies of SARS-CoV-2 have been performed using protein display or pseudovirus systems^30,31,32,33. Although these studies have offered critical insights into antibody resistance and biophysical constraints of SARS-CoV-2 evolution, they do not directly measure virus replication fitness or virulence. While multiple reverse genetic systems are available for SARS-CoV-2^34,35,36, they are more complex than those for other RNA viruses, mainly due to the larger genome size of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, probing the fitness effects of SARS-CoV-2 mutations by deep mutational scanning can be technically challenging.

In this study, we perform deep mutational scanning of S residues 808–855, spanning the S2’ cleavage site, bFP, and fusion peptide proximal region (FPPR)¹⁶, using a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC)-based reverse genetic system of SARS-CoV-2. Our results reveal that the bFP (residues 816-834) has a very low mutational tolerance. In addition, we identify mutations upstream of the S2′ cleavage site that reduced TMPRSS2-mediated entry. Further characterizations of these mutations suggest a relationship between sensitivity for TMPRSS2-mediated S2’ cleavage, cell entry pathway, and virus virulence. We also identify a mutation in the bFP that resists two broadly neutralizing bFP antibodies and naturally exists in a bat coronavirus strain.

Results

Deep mutational scanning of SARS-CoV-2 bFP

Based on a BAC-based reverse genetic system of SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan-Hu-1 (pBAC SARS-CoV-2)^37,38, we constructed a saturation mutagenesis library that contained all possible single amino acid mutations in the bFP and FPPR (residues 816–855) of the SARS-CoV-2 S, as well as the eight residues immediately upstream of the S2’ cleavage site (residues 808–815)³⁸. The BAC mutant library was transfected into Vero cells to generate a virus mutant library, which was then passaged once in Calu-3 or Vero cells for 48 h. The frequencies of individual mutations in the BAC mutant library and the post-passaged mutant library were determined by next-generation sequencing (Fig. S1). The fitness value of each mutation was calculated based on its frequency enrichment and normalized such that the mean fitness values of silent mutations and nonsense mutations were 1 and 0, respectively (see Methods). The fitness values of 893 (98%) out of 912 all possible amino acid mutations across the 48 residues of interest were measured (Fig. 1). Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.62 (Calu-3) and 0.58 (Vero) were obtained between two biological replicates (Fig. S2A, B), demonstrating the reproducibility of our deep mutational scanning experiments. Moreover, the fitness value distributions of silent and nonsense mutations had minimal overlap, further validating our results.

To further characterize our BAC-based reverse genetic system for deep mutational scanning, we also analyzed the post-transfection mutant library by next-generation sequencing. The result indicated that fitness selection was present at the transfection step as the fitness values of silent mutations were significantly higher than nonsense mutations in the post-transfection mutant library (p < 0.0001, Fig. S3A). Besides, the fitness values of the post-transfection mutant library had a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.68 between replicates (Fig. S3B), suggesting that a genetic bottleneck took place at the step of transfection, albeit mild, in our deep mutational scanning experiments. Of note, our mutant library construction approach was designed to prevent secondary mutations (see Methods). Consistently, >90% of the sequencing reads of the BAC mutant library had either 0 or 1 mutation (Fig. S3C). To assess the mutation rate of the BAC mutant library without confounding by sequencing errors from next-generation sequencing, we sequenced 22 individual clones of the BAC mutant library. Among the 22 clones, 20 (91%) had 0 or 1 mutation, two clones (9%) had 2 mutations, and none had >2 mutations (Fig. S3D). This result substantiates that our mutagenesis approach yielded predominantly 1 mutation per clone.

Recently, the effects of ~7000 natural mutations of SARS-CoV-2 S on cell entry have been quantified by a pseudovirus-based deep mutational scanning experiment³³. The fitness effects of natural mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome have also been estimated using a phylogenetic-based approach in another study³⁹. Although these studies only examined <50% of all possible amino acid mutations from residues 808 to 855, their measurements moderately correlated with our deep mutational scanning results (rank correlation ranges from 0.36 to 0.49, Fig. S2G–J). Of note, while natural mutations in circulating SARS-CoV-2 have been observed at each of residues 808–855, their natural occurrence frequency is all less than 0.3%⁴⁰.

Mutations at residue 813 modulate protease utilization for S2’ cleavage

Based on our deep mutational scanning results, we observed that certain mutations had high fitness values in Vero cells but not in Calu-3 cells (Fig. 1). This observation was particularly apparent at residue 813, which is upstream of the S2′ cleavage site. Coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, are known to enter Calu-3 cells through TMPRSS2-mediated membrane fusion on the cell surface^10,41,42. In contrast, coronaviruses enter Vero cells, with low TMPRSS2 expression, through cathepsin-mediated membrane fusion in endosomes^10,42,43,44. As a result, we hypothesized that mutations at residue 813 shifted the preference of protease utilization for the S2’ cleavage site.

To test this hypothesis, we generated VSV-based pseudoparticles (VSVpps) bearing wild-type (WT), S813V, or S813K SARS-CoV-2 S. Although S813V and S813K slightly decreased the incorporation of S into VSVpp (Fig. S4A), their efficiency of Vero cell entry was similar to WT when entry mostly occur through endosomal entry (Fig. 2A). Furthermore, cathepsin inhibitor E64D, but not TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat, significantly reduced Vero cell entry to a greater extent in S813V and S813K compared to WT (Fig. 2C, D), showing that S813V and S813K were more sensitive to blockade of endosomal entry. When Vero cells overexpressed TMPRSS2 at the cell surface (Vero-TMPRSS2), both S813V and S813K had reduced entry compared to WT (Fig. 2B), suggesting that mutations at residue 813 decreased sensitivity to TMPRSS2-mediated activation and hence cell surface entry. Nevertheless, camostat reduced Vero-TMPRSS2 cell entry to similar extents among WT, S813V, and S813K (Fig. S4C), indicating that they all preferred TMPRSS2-mediated entry when TMPRSS2 was overexpressed. This same experiment was also performed in the presence of fetal bovine serum (FBS), which suppresses cell surface protease-mediated (e.g., TMPRSS2-mediated) entry⁴⁵ (Fig. S4B). When FBS was added, Vero-TMPRSS2 cell entry of S813V and S813K became less sensitive to camostat, and hence exhibited less reliance on TMPRSS2, compared to WT (Fig. S4D). This observation can be explained by the efficient endosomal entry of S813V and S813K when TMPRSS2-mediated entry is highly suppressed. As a control, we also demonstrated that Calu-3 cell entry was camostat-sensitive and hence TMPRSS2-dependent (Fig. S4E), which agrees with previous studies^10,41,42. Consistently, we observed a reduction in entry for S813V and S813K in Calu-3 cells, where TMPRSS2 is expressed on the cell surface compared to that of WT (Fig. S4F). Taken together, these results suggest that S813V and S813K have reduced TMPRSS2-mediated entry.

**Fig. 2: Mutations at residue 813 influence the protease utilization during cell entry.**

While S813V and S813K mutants entered Vero cells as efficiently as VSVpps with WT S proteins (Fig. 2A), they had higher fitness values than WT in the deep mutational scanning experiment (Fig. 1B). This apparent discrepancy may be explained by differences between the experimental systems. The deep mutational scanning was based on the recombinant SARS-CoV-2, whereas the VSVpp experiment only measured the efficiency of cell entry, which did not represent the entire virus life cycle. Besides, the incorporation efficiency and density of S on the virion were likely different between VSVpp and recombinant SARS-CoV-2. Despite these differences, both the VSVpp and deep mutational scanning experiments support the hypothesis that mutations at residue 813 modulate the sensitivity to TMPRSS2-mediated activation of virus entry.

Mutations at residue 813 decrease SARS-CoV-2 virulence in vivo

To investigate the effects of S813V and S813K in authentic SARS-CoV-2, we introduced the two mutations individually into a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 strain³⁸. Vero cells, Vero-TMPRSS2 cells, and Vero cells overexpressing both TMPRSS2 and ACE2 (Vero-TMPRSS2/ACE2) were simultaneously infected with the same aliquot of the virus. The numbers of plaques obtained for WT, S813V, and S813K mutants were all enhanced in Vero-TMPRSS2 and Vero-TMPRSS2/ACE2 cells as compared to Vero cells. However, such enhancement was significantly higher for WT than S813V and S813K mutants in both Vero-TMPRSS2 and Vero-TMPRSS2/ACE2 cells (Fig. 3A, B). This observation substantiates the conclusion that S813V and S813K exhibit reduced sensitivity to TMPRSS2-mediated cleavage. Consistently, the S813V mutant also showed significantly higher titer than WT at 24 h post-infection (hpi) in Vero cells (p = 0.01, Fig. 3C), but not in Vero-TMPRSS2 cells (Fig. 3D).

**Fig. 3: S813V mutation reduces virulence in vivo.**

We next aimed to understand the effects of mutations at residue 813 on virulence in mice. C57BL/6 mice were infected with 1000 or 5000 plaque-forming units (PFU) of WT, S813V, or S813K mutants. At 1000 PFU, infection with either the S813V or S813K mutant caused significantly less weight loss compared to WT (Fig. 3E). At 5000 PFU, the S813V mutant virus again resulted in less weight loss and higher survival rate than WT (Fig. 3F, G), despite having similar, if not higher virus titers in the lungs at 2 and 5 days post-infection (dpi) compared to WT (Fig. 3H, I). Together, these data indicate that mutations at residue 813 decreased virulence in vivo.

Low mutational tolerance of the bFP

Although some mutations, such as those at residue 813, showed differential fitness effects between Calu-3 and Vero cells, many mutations in the deep mutational scanning experiment had consistently low fitness values between the two cell lines (Fig. 1). Subsequently, we aimed to identify regions with low mutational tolerance. Here, we defined the mutational tolerance at each residue as the average fitness value of mutations at the given residue in Calu-3 cells. Residues that interact with the host membrane should have lower mutational tolerance due to functional constraints, as demonstrated by a previous deep mutational scanning study on influenza hemagglutinin (Fig. S5)^46,47. Notably, residues 816–833, which spanned most of the bFP, had low mutational tolerance (Fig. 4A). In contrast, the FPPR had a much higher mutational tolerance.

**Fig. 4: Structural analysis of the mutational tolerance of SARS-CoV-2 bFP and FPPR.**

An NMR structure of the bFP and FPPR indicates that they form a three-helix wedge-shaped structure when interacting with the host membrane, with Leu828, which is located between helix 1 and helix 2, pointing towards the interior of the membrane¹³. Based on the mutational tolerance data, we further propose that helix 1 and the N-terminal half of helix 2, which represent the bFP, could interact with the membrane during virus-host membrane fusion. In contrast, the C-terminal half of helix 2 and all of helix 3, which represent the FPPR, would likely remain in the aqueous phase (Fig. 4B). As a result, our deep mutational scanning data substantiates that the bFP interacts with the host membrane^13,48.

We also identified three residues in the FPPR that had low mutational tolerance, namely Cys840, Asp848, and Cys851 (Fig. 4A). The low mutational tolerance of Cys840 and Cys851 could be explained by the disulfide bond between them (Fig. 4B). On the other hand, the functional importance of Asp848 was not as clear. Previous studies suggest that the bFP and FPPR each bind to a calcium ion via their negatively charged residues to promote membrane fusion^13,49. All three negatively charged residues in the bFP, namely E819, D820, and D830, had very low mutational tolerance, consistent with these three residues representing the calcium-binding site in the bFP⁴⁹. Our mutational tolerance data further suggested that Asp848 was the calcium-binding site in the FPPR (Fig. 4A), since it was the only negatively charged residue in the FPPR that could not tolerate any non-negatively charged mutations (Fig. 1). Consistently, Asp848, but not Asp839 and Asp843, which are the other two negatively charged residues in the FPPR, is conserved across all four genera of coronaviruses⁵⁰.

Resistance of F823Y mutation to bFP antibodies

Previous studies have shown that antibody resistance mutations can be identified by deep mutational scanning^26,51,52. To investigate whether SARS-CoV-2 bFP can acquire resistance mutations to bFP antibodies, deep mutational scanning was performed in the presence of bFP antibodies COV44-62 and COV44-79, both of which can neutralize SARS-CoV-2 and cross-react with coronavirus strains from different genera¹⁷. These two antibodies engage the bFP differently and are encoded by different germline genes¹⁷. COV44-62 is encoded by IGHV1-2/IGLV2-8, whereas COV44-79 is encoded by IGHV3-30/IGKV1-12¹⁷.

Our deep mutational scanning results indicated that F823Y, which had minimal fitness cost (Fig. 1), was a resistance mutation to both COV44-62 and COV44-79 (Fig. 5A, B, Fig. S2C–F and Fig. S6A). To validate this finding, we generated VSVpp bearing SARS-CoV-2 S with the F823Y mutation. F823Y did not affect the incorporation of SARS-CoV-2 S into VSVpp, S1–S2 stability, or cleavage at the S1/S2 site (Fig. S4A). Nevertheless, F823Y S-bearing VSVpp conferred resistance to both COV44-62 and COV44-79 in a neutralization assay (Fig. 5C, D). The resistance of F823Y appeared to be stronger against COV44-79 than COV44-62 since F823Y S-bearing VSVpp was partly neutralized by COV44-62, but not COV44-79 at the highest tested concentration (500 μg/mL) (Fig. 5C, D). Consistently, the F823Y mutation weakened the binding of an epitope-containing peptide to COV44-62 and COV44-79 by 8-fold and >40-fold, respectively (Fig. S6B). These results demonstrate that resistance to bFP antibodies can be conferred by a single mutation.

**Fig. 5: F823Y weakens the binding of bFP antibodies.**

To understand the structural mechanism of antibody resistance, we further analyzed the previously determined x-ray crystal structures of COV44-62 and COV44-79 in complex with SARS-CoV-2 bFP¹⁷. FoldX was used to model the structural effect of F823Y mutation⁵³. The major difference between Phe and Tyr is an extra side-chain hydroxyl group on Tyr. Our models showed that the hydroxyl group of Tyr823 pointed towards the bottom of hydrophobic pockets formed in the COV44-62 and COV44-79 binding sites (Fig. 5E, F). Burying a polar hydroxyl group on the Tyr side chain without forming any H-bond would impose an appreciable desolvation energy cost⁵⁴. Consistently, FoldX indicated that the F823Y mutation weakened the binding energy of COV44-62 and COV44-79 by 1.0 and 1.2 kcal/mol, respectively. These observations provide a mechanistic basis for the resistance to bFP antibodies conferred by F823Y.

Discussion

Most studies of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein focus on the RBD since it is immunodominant and engages the host receptor ACE2 for cell entry^1,22,23. In contrast, the S2 domain is less well characterized. The bFP and its flanking regions were chosen for our study here as their role in mediating the fusion process has not been thoroughly characterized. Since no antivirals are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration to target this region, mutations within this region should not inhibit the efficacy of any clinical regimen available for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, mutagenesis described in this study was performed in the S2 region instead of the immunodominant RBD in the S1 subunit. As a result, most people should have robust immunity against all the SARS-CoV-2 mutants in our library due to vaccinations or prior infections. Our study here provides important insights into how mutations in the regions adjacent to the S2’ cleavage site can modulate the preference of cell entry pathway as well as promote resistance to broadly neutralizing antibodies, which may inform vaccine design to prevent future coronavirus pandemics. Our results also advance the knowledge of the evolutionary potential of the SARS-CoV-2 S2 domain and demonstrate the feasibility of applying deep mutational scanning to authentic SARS-CoV-2.

A key result in this study is the low mutational tolerance of the bFP, which substantiates its functional importance during membrane fusion^13,14,15. However, the bFP was located outside the membrane as a disordered region in a recent cryo-EM structure of postfusion SARS-CoV-2 S in a lipid bilayer membrane¹⁶. Instead, the iFP inserts into the membrane in this cryo-EM structure. However, the postfusion SARS-CoV-2 S in this cryo-EM structure does not have a cleaved S2’ site that is essential for membrane fusion during virus entry^16,55. Besides, this cryo-EM structure was determined at pH 7.5 without any calcium ions, while SARS-CoV-2 S-mediated membrane fusion requires an acidic pH⁵⁶ and the presence of calcium ions^49,57. While it is always challenging for structural and biophysical studies of viral fusion proteins to emulate the physiological states as would occur in vivo, it is possible that both bFP and iFP of SARS-CoV-2 S interact with the host membrane^13,16, but at different stages of the membrane fusion process. Future studies are therefore needed to better characterize the molecular mechanisms of the highly dynamic S-mediated membrane fusion process.

Another major observation in our study is that mutations at SARS-CoV-2 S residue 813 influenced host cell entry and sensitivity to TMPRSS2-mediated S2’ cleavage. Consistently, similar findings on residue 813 have recently been described for different SARS-CoV-2 variants as well as SARS-CoV⁵⁸. Previous studies showed that H655Y and N969K mutations in Omicron can shift the preference from TMPRSS2-mediated cell surface entry to cathepsins-mediated endosomal entry, resulting in reduced virulence^8,9,10. The proposed underlying mechanism is that they stabilize the S trimer and hence decrease the fusogenicity and cell surface entry efficiency^9,10,11. We also observed this relationship between the cell entry pathway and virulence in mutations at residue 813. However, unlike H655Y and N969K, residue 813 is near the S2’ cleavage site (Fig. S7). Therefore, while S813V and S813K have similar phenotypes as H655Y and N969K, their molecular mechanisms are unlikely to be the same. Given that other residues flanking the S2’ cleavage site can also modulate protease preference for S2’ cleavage^59,60, mutations in this region may provide valuable information on the preference of cell entry pathway and pathogenicity as SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve. At the same time, mutations with differential fitness effects between Calu-3 and Vero cells that are distal from the S2’ cleavage site may represent mechanisms unrelated to S2’ cleavage. We believe those mutations, albeit outside of the scope of this study, warrant future investigations.

There are currently five coronavirus strains circulating in the human population (229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43, and SARS-CoV-2). In addition, other zoonotic coronaviruses continue to pose a pandemic threat⁶¹. As a result, developing a pan-coronavirus vaccine has become an attractive idea, especially after the discovery of broadly neutralizing antibodies to the bFP^17,20,21,24. However, despite the high sequence conservation of the bFP, our study here found that the F823Y mutation can confer strong resistance against bFP antibodies. F823Y is a natural variant in bat betacoronavirus HKU9 and is also observed in circulating SARS-CoV-2 at a very low frequency (Fig. S8). Although these observations represent a potential obstacle to the development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine, resistance mutations against bFP antibodies are rare in our deep mutational scanning results, partly due to the high fitness cost of most mutations in the bFP. Therefore, we concur that the bFP is a promising target for the development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine^17,20,21,24.

Methods

Cell lines and antibodies

HEK293T (ATCC, CRL-3216), Calu-3 (BEI resources, NR-55340), Vero (ATCC, CRL-1586), Vero-TMPRSS2 (generated by Dr. Michael Diamond, Washington University in St. Louis) and Vero-TMPRSS2/ACE2 (BEI resources, NR-54970) cells were maintained in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Media (DMEM) containing 10 mM HEPES, 100 nM sodium pyruvate, 0.1 mM non-essential amino acids, 100 U/ml penicillin G, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin, and supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, Atlanta Biologicals). Calu-3 cells were maintained in Minimum Essential Media (MEM) supplemented with 20% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin G, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin. All cell lines were cultured in a 5% CO₂ incubator at 37 °C. Antibodies used in this study were purchased from commercial vendors as listed: SARS-CoV-2 anti-N antibody (SinoBiological, Cat. #: Cat: 40143-R001); CoV 44-79 and CoV 44-62 were expressed and purified in-house as described below. Rabbit polyclonal anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1 (SinoBiological, catalog #: 40591-T62); Mouse anti-C9 (EMD Millipore, catalog #: MAB5356); Mouse monoclonal anti-VSV-M (KeraFast, catalog #: EB0011); HRP anti-mouse antibody (Thermo Fisher, catalog #: 31430); HRP anti-rabbit (Thermo Fisher, catalog #: 31460). Antibodies purchased from commercial vendors have been validated by the manufacturer for the specific application in this study. Experiments were performed under the conditions specified by the manufacturer.

SARS-CoV-2 infection of mice

All experiments with SARS-CoV-2 were performed in a biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory at the University of Iowa. All animal studies were approved by the University of Iowa Animal Care and Use Committee and meet stipulations of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (protocol # 2071795-013). C57BL/6 mice of both sexes at 4–6 months old were purchased from NCI, Charles Rivers. Mice were housed under standard conditions of dark/light cycle, ambient temperature, and humidity. Mice were anesthetized with ketamine-xylazine and infected intranasally with the indicated amount of virus in a total volume of 50 μL DMEM. Animal weight and health were monitored daily.

Virus titer by plaque assay

At the indicated times, mice were euthanized and transcardially perfused with PBS. Lungs were collected and homogenized before clarification by centrifugation and tittering. Virus or tissue homogenate supernatants were serially diluted in DMEM. Vero, Vero-TMPRSS2, or Vero-TMPRSS2/ACE2 cells in 12-well plates were inoculated at 37 °C in 5% CO₂ for 1 h and gently rocked every 15 min. After removing the inocula, plates were overlaid with 0.6% agarose containing 2% FBS. After 3 days, overlays were removed, and plaques were visualized by staining with 0.1% crystal violet. Viral titers were quantified as PFU per mL tissue.

Virus titer by focus forming assay

Virus or tissue homogenate supernatants were serially diluted in DMEM. Vero, Vero-TMPRSS2, or Vero-TMPRSS2/ACE2 cells in 96-well plates were inoculated at 37 °C in 5% CO₂ for 1 h and gently rocked every 15 min. After removing the inocula, plates were overlaid with 1.2% methylcellulose containing 2% FBS. The next day, overlays were removed, and cells were stained with anti-nucleocapsid antibody for SARS-CoV-2 (1:1000) for 1 h at 37 °C and then with HPR-conjugated secondary antibody for 1 h at 37 °C. Foci were visualized by peroxidase substrate. Viral titers were quantified as fluorescent focus unit (FFU) per mL tissue.

Virus growth assay

Vero or Vero-TMPRSS2 cells in 12-well plates were infected with 0.01 MOI of the indicated virus diluted in DMEM. Cells were frozen at the indicated time points. Virus titers were determined by either plaque assay or focus forming assay. Three biological replicates were included for each time point.

Mutant library construction

A mutant library of residues 808-855 of SARS-CoV-2 S was constructed based on a BAC-based reverse genetic system of SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan-Hu-1 (p-BAC SARS-CoV-2)^37,38. Saturation mutagenesis was performed using an overlapping PCR strategy as described previously³². Briefly, a library of mutant inserts was generated by two separate batches of PCRs to cover the entire region of interest (residues 808–855). The first batch of PCRs consisted of 6 reactions, each containing one cassette of forward primers and the universal reverse primer 5’- GCC AAT AGC ACT ATT AAA TTG GTT-3’. Each cassette contained an equal molar ratio of eight forward primers that had the same 21 nucleotides (nt) at the 5’ end and 15 nt at the 3’ end. Each primer within a cassette was also encoded with an NNK (N: A, C, G, T; K: G, T) sequence at a specified codon position for saturation mutagenesis. In addition, each primer also carried unique silent mutations (also known as synonymous mutations) to help distinguish between sequencing errors and true mutations in downstream sequencing data analysis as described previously⁶². The forward primers, named CassetteX_N (X: cassette number, N: primer number), are listed in Table S1. The second batch of PCR consisted of another 6 PCRs, each with a universal forward primer 5’-ATG TAC ATT TGT GGT GAT TCA ACT-3’ and a unique reverse primer as listed in Table S1. Subsequently, 6 overlapping PCRs were performed using the universal forward and reverse primers, as well as a mixture of 10 ng each of the corresponding products from the first and second batches of PCR. The 6 overlap PCR products were then mixed at equal molar ratios to generate the final insert of the mutant library. All PCRs were performed using PrimeSTAR Max polymerase (Takara Bio, catalog no. R045B) per the manufacturer’s instruction, followed by purification using the Monarch Gel Extraction Kit (New England Biolabs, catalog no. T1020L).

The mutant library PCR product (residues 808–855) was introduced into the SARS-CoV-2 BAC encoding Wuhan-Hu-1 sequence by a two-step linear lambda red recombination process^63,64. The first step removed and replaced the region of interest with the GalK-Kan selection marker, while the second step removed and replaced the GalK-Kan selection marker with the mutant library PCR product. In brief, the GalK-Kan selection marker flanked by the SARS-CoV-2 sequence was PCR-amplified from pYD-C225⁶³ and gel-purified. Gel-purified GalK-Kan fragments were transformed into SW102 cells carrying the SARS-CoV-2 BAC by electroporation for linear lambda red recombination. Recombinants were selected by Kanamycin resistance culture plates. The presence of GalK-Kan cassette in selected recombinants was verified by PCR with primers flanking the area of recombination: 5’-CCA TAC CCA CAA ATT TTA CTA TTA GTG TTA CCA CA-3’ and 5’-TTG ACC ACA TCT TGA AGT TTT CCA AGT G-3’). Verified recombinants were further introduced with the mutant library PCR product (residues 808–855) by electroporation for a second round of linear lambda red recombination. Two electroporation was performed separately to obtain two independent BAC mutant libraries as replicates. Successful recombinants were selected using 2-deoxy-galactose-based culture plates. All viable clones were collected and pooled to generate the BAC mutant library. The loss of the GalK-Kan cassette (and hence the SARS-CoV-2 sequence) in the BAC mutant library was confirmed by PCR with primers flanking the area of recombination: 5’-CCA TAC CCA CAA ATT TTA CTA TTA GTG TTA CCA CA-3’ and 5’-TTG ACC ACA TCT TGA AGT TTT CCA AGT G-3’. GalK-Kan selection markers were amplified with primers: 5’-ATG TAC ATT TGT GGT GAT TCA ACT GAA TGC AGC AAT CTT TTG TTG CAA TAC CTG TTG ACA ATT AAT CAT CG-3’ and 5’-GCC AAT AGC ACT ATT AAA TTG GTT GGC AAT CAA TTT TTG GTT CTC ATA GAC TCA GCA AAA GTT CGA TTT A-3’. Sequences complementary to pYD-C225 are underlined.

S813V and S813K were first individually introduced to an expression construct encoding SARS-CoV-2 S with an NEB Q5 site-directed mutagenesis kit. S813K was introduced with primers: 5’-ATC AAA ACC AAA GAA GAG GTC ATT TAT TG-3’ and 5’- GGA TCT GGT AAT ATT TGT G-3’; S813V was introduced with primers: 5’-ATC AAA ACC AGT GAA GAG GTC ATT TAT TGA AG-3’ and 5’- GGA TCT GGT AAT ATT TGT G-3’. The mutated codons for S813K and S813V are underlined. The part of the S protein encoding S813K or S813V were separately amplified with primers: 5’-CCA TAC CCA CAA ATT TTA CTA TTA GTG TTA CCA CA-3’ and 5’-TTG ACC ACA TCT TGA AGT TTT CCA AGT G-3’ from the expression construct of the SARS-CoV-2 S encoding S813K or S813V generated from the site-directed mutagenesis process. The PCR products were introduced into SARS-CoV-2 BAC as described above.

Rescue and passage of the viral mutant library

2 μg of BAC mutant library were transfected into Vero cells with Lipofectamine 3000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, catalog #: L3000008) into each well of a 6-well plate according to the manufacturer’s protocol (12 μg in total for each replicate). Cells were monitored daily for cytopathic effects (CPE). Cultures were harvested when CPE was >50% by freezing at −80 °C. Viruses rescued from each well of the transfected 6-well plate were pooled independently for each replicate to generate the P0 virus. The titers for the P0 virus were determined by plaque assay and further passaged in Calu-3 or Vero cells at an MOI of 0.01 in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS. P1 viruses were harvested at 48 h post-infection by freezing at −80 °C. SARS-CoV-2 BAC with S813K or S813V mutations were recovered as described above.

For the antibody resistance selection, bFP antibodies were incubated with the P0 viruses at a concentration that corresponds to PRNT₉₀ at 37 °C for 1 h. The amount of P0 viruses used corresponds to the amount needed for infection at an MOI of 0.01 in a T75 flask. Calu-3 or Vero cells were then infected with the virus inoculum for 1 h in the presence of 230 μg/mL COV44-62 antibody or 330 μg/mL COV44-79 antibody. The virus inoculum was removed after virus adsorption, and cells were washed with PBS before supplementing the culture medium with 230 μg/mL COV44-62 antibody or 330 μg/mL COV44-79 antibody. Supernatant and cells were harvested at 48 h post-infection by freezing at −80 °C.

Sequencing library preparation

Viruses from different passages were inactivated in TRIzol (Thermo Fisher Scientific, catalog no. 15596026) for RNA isolation as specified by the manufacturer’s protocol. Isolated RNA was subject to DNase I treatment (Thermo Fisher Scientific, catalog no. 18068015) and reverse-transcribed using the SuperScript IV First-Strand Synthesis System with random hexamers (Thermo Fisher Scientific, catalog no. 18091050). The region corresponding to residues 805-864 was amplified from the cDNA (post-selection) or the BAC mutant library (input) using KOD Hot Start DNA polymerase (MilliporeSigma, catalog no. 710863) per the manufacturer’s instruction with the following two primers: 5’-CAC TCT TTC CCT ACA CGA CGC TCT TCC GAT CTT TTG GTG GTT TTA ATT TTT CAC AA-3’ and 5’-GAC TGG AGT TCA GAC GTG TGC TCT TCC GAT CTT TGA GCA ATC ATT TCA TCT GTG AG-3’. Sequences complementary to the cDNA are underlined, whereas the rest of the sequences correspond to the Illumina adapter sequence. An additional PCR was performed to add the rest of the Illumina adapter sequence and index to the amplicon using primers: 5’-AAT GAT ACG GCG ACC ACC GAG ATC TAC ACX XXX XXX XAC ACT CTT TCC CTA CAC GAC GCT-3’ and 5’-CAA GCA GAA GAC GGC ATA CGA GAT XXX XXX XXG TGA CTG GAG TTC AGA CGT GTG CT-3’. Positions annotated by an X represent the nucleotides for the index sequence. The final PCR products were purified by PureLink PCR purification kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, catalog no. K310002) and submitted for next-generation sequencing using Illumina MiSeq PE250.

Sequencing data analysis

Next-generation sequencing data were obtained in FASTQ format. Forward and reverse reads of each paired-end read were merged by PEAR⁶⁵. The merged reads were parsed by SeqIO module in BioPython⁶⁶. Primer sequences were trimmed from the merged reads. Trimmed reads with lengths inconsistent with the expected length were discarded. The trimmed reads were then translated to amino acid sequences, with sequencing error correction performed at the same time as previously described⁶². Amino acid mutations were called by comparing the translated reads to the WT amino acid sequence. The frequency (F) of a mutant i within sample s of replicate k was computed for each replicate as follows:

$${F}_{i,s,k}=\frac{{{{{{\rm{readcount}}}}}}_{i,s,k}+1}{{\sum }_{i}({{{{{\rm{readcount}}}}}}_{i,s,n,k}+1)}$$

(1)

Mutants with a frequency of <0.01% in the BAC mutant library were discarded.

Enrichment score (ES) of mutant i in replicate k was calculated as follows:

$${{{{{\rm{ES}}}}}}_{i,k}={\log }_{10}\frac{{F}_{i,k,{{{{{\rm{post}}}}}}-{{{{{\rm{selection}}}}}}}}{{F}_{i,k,{{{{{\rm{input}}}}}}}}$$

(2)

Fitness value (W) of a mutant i in replicate k was calculated as follows:

$${W}_{i,k}=\frac{{{{{{\rm{ES}}}}}}_{i,k}-\overline{{{{{{\rm{ES}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{nonsense}}}}}},k}}}{\overline{{{{{{\rm{ES}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{silent}}}}}},k}}-\overline{{{{{{\rm{ES}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{nonsense}}}}}},k}}}$$

(3)

where $\overline{{{{{{\rm{ES}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{silent}}}}}},k}}$ and $\overline{{{{{{\rm{ES}}}}}}_{{{{{{\rm{nonsense}}}}}},k}}$ represent the average ES for silent and nonsense mutations, respectively, in replicate k.

The final fitness value for each mutant was the average W of the two replicates. The mutational tolerance for each residue was computed as the average fitness value of mutations at the given residue.

Relative resistance (R) for a given mutant i against antibody a in cell line c was computed as follows:

$${R}_{i,c,a}={W}_{i,c,a}-{W}_{i,c,{{{{{\rm{no}}}}}}\,{{{{{\rm{antibody}}}}}}}$$

(4)

Sanger sequencing of individual clones

The two BAC mutant libraries were used as templates for amplifying spike residues 808-855 with the following forward primer encoding EcoRI site: 5’-GGT ACC GAA TTC CCA TAC CCA CAA ATT TTA CTA TTA GTG TTA CCA CA-3’ and reverse primer encoding NotI site:5’- GGT ACC GCG GCC GCT TGA CCA CAT CTT GAA GTT TTC CAA GTG-3’. EcoRI and NotI sequences are underlined in the forward and reverse primer, respectively. The PCR products were purified with PureLink™ Quick Gel Extraction Kit (Thermo Scientific) and digested with EcoRI and NotI (New England Biolabs). The digested DNA products were purified and ligated with EcoRI/NotI digested pcDNA3.1 vector with T4 DNA Ligase (New England Biolabs). Individual clones were selected and DNA was isolated with QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit (Qiagen). Purified DNA was sequenced with the following primer: 5’-CCA TAC CCA CAA ATT TTA CTA TTA GTG TTA CCA CA-3’.

Antibody expression and purification

The heavy chain and light chain of the indicated antibodies were cloned into phCMV3 plasmids in an IgG1 or Fab format with a mouse immunoglobulin kappa signal peptide. Plasmids encoding the heavy chain and light chain of antibodies were transfected into Expi293F cells using an ExpiFectamine 293 transfection kit (Gibco) in a 2:1 mass ratio following the manufacturer’s protocol. The supernatant was harvested 6 days post-transfection and centrifuged at 4000 × g for 30 min at 4 °C to remove cells and debris. The supernatant was subsequently clarified using a polyethersulfone membrane filter with a 0.22 μm pore size (Millipore).

CaptureSelect CH1-XL beads (Thermo Scientific) were washed with MilliQ H₂O thrice and resuspended in 1× PBS. The clarified supernatant was incubated with washed beads overnight at 4°C with gentle rocking. Then, flowthrough was collected, and beads were washed once with 1× PBS. Beads were incubated in 60 mM sodium acetate, pH 3.7, for 10 min at 4 °C. The eluate-containing antibody was buffer-exchanged into 1× PBS and further purified by size-exclusion chromatography using Superdex 200 XK 16/100 column in 1× PBS. Antibodies were stored at 4 °C.

Biolayer interferometry binding assay

Binding assays were performed by biolayer interferometry (BLI) using an Octet Red instrument (FortéBio). Briefly, an N-terminally biotinylated peptide of SARS-CoV-2 S (808-DPSKPSKRSFIEDLLFNKVT-827) as well as a version with F823Y mutation at 50 μg/ml in 1× kinetics buffer (1× PBS, pH 7.4, 0.01% BSA and 0.002% Tween 20) were loaded onto SA biosensors and incubated with the COV44-62 and COV44-79 Fabs at 33.3 nM, 100 nM, and 300 nM. The assay consisted of five steps: (1) baseline: 60 s with 1× kinetics buffer; (2) loading: 180 s with biotinylated peptides, (3) baseline: 60 s with 1× kinetics buffer; (4) association: 180 s with Fabs; and (5) dissociation: 180 s with 1× kinetics buffer. For estimating the exact KD, a 1:1 binding model was used.

Pseudovirus virus entry assay

Full-length SARS-CoV-2 S gene (GenBank: NC_045512.2) was synthesized by GenScript. as human codon-optimized cDNAs, and inserted into pcDNA3.1 expression vector⁶⁷. C9-tagged versions of the S genes were generated by replacing the 3’-terminal 19 codons with linker and C9 codons (GSSGGSSG-GGTETSQVAPA)⁶⁸. All S recombinants were constructed via gene fragment Assembly (New England Biolabs, catalog #: E2621S).

pHEF-VSVG-Indiana was constructed previously⁶⁹. VSVG∆G-fluc-G pseudoviral particles (VSVpps⁷⁰) stock was made as previously described⁷¹. Briefly, HEK293T cells were transfected with VSV-G. The next day, seed VSV∆G-G particles were inoculated onto the transfected cells for 2 h. The cells were rinsed three times with an FBS-free DMEM medium and replenished with fresh media. After a 48-h incubation period, media were collected and clarified (300 × g, 4 °C, 10 min then 3000 × g, 4 °C, 10 min). To obtain purified viral particles, clarified VLP-containing media were laid on top of 20% w/w sucrose cushions, and viral particles were purified via slow-speed pelleting (SW28, 6500 rpm, 4 °C, 24 h). The resulting pellet was resuspended in FBS-free DMEM to 1/100 of the original volumes. Concentrated particle stocks were stored at −80 °C until used.

VSVpps bearing various recombinant SARS-CoV-2 S proteins were used to infect different cell types. VSVpps were quantified based on VSV-M expression by Western Blot analysis. For protease/antibody inhibition experiments, cells were pre-incubated with serial dilutions of camostat, E64D, or antibodies for 1 h at 37 °C before VSVpp inoculation. Inoculation was allowed to infect cells for 2 h, then cells were rinsed 3 times and replenished with cell culture media (with 10% FBS). Following overnight incubation, cells were lysed by lysis buffer (25 mM Tris-phosphate pH 7.8, 2 mM dithiothreitol, 2 mM 1,2-diaminocyclohexane-N,N,N′-tetraacetic acid, 10% glycerol, 1% Triton X-100). Firefly luciferase (VSVpp) activity was recorded by a Veritas microplate luminometer after the addition of substrate (1 mM d-luciferin, 3 mM ATP, 15 mM MgSO₄·H₂O, 30 mM HEPES pH 7.8).

Western blot analysis

Samples in SDS solubilizer (0.0625 M Tris·HCl pH 6.8, 10% glycerol, 0.01% bromophenol blue, 2% SDS, and 2% 2-mercaptoethanol) were heated at 95 °C for 5 min, electrophoresed through 8% polyacrylamide-SDS gels, transferred to nitrocellulose membranes (Bio-Rad), and incubated with rabbit polyclonal anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1 (SinoBiological, catalog #: 40591-T62; 1:1000), mouse anti-C9 (EMD Millipore, catalog #: MAB5356; 1:1000), mouse monoclonal anti-VSV-M (KeraFast, catalog #: EB0011; 1:1000). After incubation with anti-mouse (Thermo Fisher, catalog #: 31430, 1:5000) or anti-rabbit (Thermo Fisher, catalog #: 31460, 1:5000) HRP-tagged secondary antibodies and chemiluminescent substrate, or purified LgBiT-substrate cocktail (Promega), the blots were imaged and processed with a FluorChem E (Protein Simple).

Structural modeling

FoldX⁵³ was used to model the structural and protein stability effects of mutation F823Y. The published structures of SARS-CoV-2 bFP in complex COV44-62 (PDB 8D36)¹⁷ and COV44-79 (PDB 8DAO)¹⁷ were used as input.

Sequence alignment

Sequence alignment was performed using (http://www.bioinformatics.org/sms/multi_align.html)⁷². Sequences were downloaded from NCBI GenBank database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank)⁷³. Genbank IDs for the S sequences used are as follows:

ABB90529.1: Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E)

YP_003767.1: Human coronavirus NL63 (HCoV-NL63)

ADN03339.1: Human coronavirus HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1)

AIX10756.1: Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43)

YP_001039971.1: Rousettus bat coronavirus HKU9 (BatCoV-HKU9)

ABF65836.1: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV)

QHD43416.1: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

AHX00731.1: Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV)

YP_001876437.1: Beluga whale coronavirus SW1 (BWCoV-SW1)

AHB63508.1: Bottlenose dolphin coronavirus HKU22 (BDCoV-HKU22)

AFD29226.1: Night heron coronavirus HKU19 (NHCoV-HKU19)

AFD29187.1: Porcine coronavirus HKU15 (PDCoV-HKU15)

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

Raw sequencing data have been submitted to the NIH Short Read Archive under accession number: BioProject PRJNA910585. NMR structure of the bFP and FPPR were retrieved from PDB (7MY8). Raw data are provided in the “Source Data” file with this paper. Source data are provided in this paper.

Code availability

Custom Python scripts for all analyses have been deposited to: https://zenodo.org/records/10841475⁷⁴.

References

Jackson, C. B., Farzan, M., Chen, B. & Choe, H. Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 3–20 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. et al. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell 181, 271–280.e8 (2020).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Koch, J. et al. TMPRSS2 expression dictates the entry route used by SARS-CoV-2 to infect host cells. EMBO J. 40, e107821 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Shang, J. et al. Cell entry mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 11727–11734 (2020).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Li, F. Structure, function, and evolution of coronavirus spike proteins. Annu. Rev. Virol. 3, 237–261 (2016).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Cai, Y. et al. Distinct conformational states of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Science 369, 1586–1592 (2020).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Fan, X., Cao, D., Kong, L. & Zhang, X. Cryo-EM analysis of the post-fusion structure of the SARS-CoV spike glycoprotein. Nat. Commun. 11, 3618 (2020).
Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Meng, B. et al. Altered TMPRSS2 usage by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron impacts infectivity and fusogenicity. Nature 603, 706–714 (2022).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Peacock, T. P. et al. The altered entry pathway and antigenic distance of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant map to separate domains of spike protein. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.31.474653 (2022).
Article Google Scholar
Qu, P. et al. Determinants and mechanisms of the low fusogenicity and high dependence on endosomal entry of Omicron subvariants. mBio. 14, e0317622 (2023).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
McCallum, M. et al. Structural basis of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron immune evasion and receptor engagement. Science 375, 864–868 (2022).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Essalmani, R. et al. Distinctive roles of furin and TMPRSS2 in SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. J. Virol. 96, e0012822 (2022).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Koppisetti, R. K., Fulcher, Y. G. & Van Doren, S. R. Fusion peptide of SARS-CoV-2 Spike rearranges into a wedge inserted in bilayered micelles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143, 13205–13211 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Belouzard, S., Chu, V. C. & Whittaker, G. R. Activation of the SARS coronavirus spike protein via sequential proteolytic cleavage at two distinct sites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 5871–5876 (2009).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Madu, I. G., Roth, S. L., Belouzard, S. & Whittaker, G. R. Characterization of a highly conserved domain within the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike protein S2 domain with characteristics of a viral fusion peptide. J. Virol. 83, 7411–7421 (2009).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Shi, W. et al. Cryo-EM structure of SARS-CoV-2 postfusion spike in membrane. Nature 619, 403–409 (2023).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Dacon, C. et al. Broadly neutralizing antibodies target the coronavirus fusion peptide. Science 377, 728–735 (2022).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Pinto, D. et al. Broad betacoronavirus neutralization by a stem helix-specific human antibody. Science 373, 1109–1116 (2021).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dacon, C. et al. Rare, convergent antibodies targeting the stem helix broadly neutralize diverse betacoronaviruses. Cell Host Microbe 31, 97–111.e12 (2023).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Low, J. S. et al. ACE2-binding exposes the SARS-CoV-2 fusion peptide to broadly neutralizing coronavirus antibodies. Science 377, 735–742 (2022).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bianchini, F. et al. Human neutralizing antibodies to cold linear epitopes and subdomain 1 of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Sci. Immunol. 8, eade0958 (2023).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Premkumar, L. et al. The receptor binding domain of the viral spike protein is an immunodominant and highly specific target of antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 patients. Sci. Immunol. 5, eabc8413 (2020).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Yuan, M., Liu, H., Wu, N. C. & Wilson, I. A. Recognition of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain by neutralizing antibodies. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 538, 192–203 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Sun, X. et al. Neutralization mechanism of a human antibody with pan-coronavirus reactivity including SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1063–1074 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Thyagarajan, B. & Bloom, J. D. The inherent mutational tolerance and antigenic evolvability of influenza hemagglutinin. eLife 3, e03300 (2014).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wu, N. C. et al. Different genetic barriers for resistance to HA stem antibodies in influenza H3 and H1 viruses. Science 368, 1335–1340 (2020).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Haddox, H. K., Dingens, A. S. & Bloom, J. D. Experimental estimation of the effects of all amino-acid mutations to HIV’s envelope protein on viral replication in cell culture. PLoS Pathog. 12, e1006114 (2016).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Qi, H. et al. A quantitative high-resolution genetic profile rapidly identifies sequence determinants of hepatitis C viral fitness and drug sensitivity. PLoS Pathog. 10, e1004064 (2014).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Setoh, Y. X. et al. Determinants of Zika virus host tropism uncovered by deep mutational scanning. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 876–887 (2019).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Starr, T. N. et al. Deep mutational scanning of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals constraints on folding and ACE2 binding. Cell 182, 1295–13 (2020).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Frank, F. et al. Deep mutational scanning identifies SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid escape mutations of currently available rapid antigen tests. Cell 185, 3603–3616.e13 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ouyang, W. O. et al. Probing the biophysical constraints of SARS-CoV-2 spike N-terminal domain using deep mutational scanning. Sci. Adv. 8, eadd7221 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dadonaite, B. et al. A pseudovirus system enables deep mutational scanning of the full SARS-CoV-2 spike. Cell 186, 1263–1278.e20 (2023).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Xie, X. et al. Engineering SARS-CoV-2 using a reverse genetic system. Nat. Protoc. 16, 1761–1784 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Almazan, F. et al. Coronavirus reverse genetic systems: infectious clones and replicons. Virus Res. 189, 262–270 (2014).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Thi Nhu Thao, T. et al. Rapid reconstruction of SARS-CoV-2 using a synthetic genomics platform. Nature 582, 561–565 (2020).
Article ADS Google Scholar
Almazan, F. et al. Engineering a replication-competent, propagation-defective Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus as a vaccine candidate. mBio. 4, e00650–13 (2013).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wong, L. R. et al. Eicosanoid signalling blockade protects middle-aged mice from severe COVID-19. Nature 605, 146–151 (2022).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Bloom, J. D. & Neher, R. A. Fitness effects of mutations to SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Virus Evol. 9, vead055 (2023).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Shu, Y. & McCauley, J. GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data—from vision to reality. Eur. Surveill. 22, 30494 (2017).
Article Google Scholar
Park, J. E. et al. Proteolytic processing of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus spikes expands virus tropism. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12262–12267 (2016).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Willett, B. J. et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron is an immune escape variant with an altered cell entry pathway. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1161–1179 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Laporte, M. et al. The SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronavirus spike proteins are fine-tuned towards temperature and proteases of the human airways. PLoS Pathog. 17, e1009500 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hu, B. et al. Spike mutations contributing to the altered entry preference of SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.1 and BA.2. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 11, 2275–2287 (2022).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wettstein, L. et al. Alpha-1 antitrypsin inhibits TMPRSS2 protease activity and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat. Commun. 12, 1726 (2021).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Cross, K. J., Langley, W. A., Russell, R. J., Skehel, J. J. & Steinhauer, D. A. Composition and functions of the influenza fusion peptide. Protein Pept. Lett. 16, 766–778 (2009).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Doud, M. B. & Bloom, J. D. Accurate measurement of the effects of all amino-acid mutations on influenza hemagglutinin. Viruses 8, E155 (2016).
Article Google Scholar
Khelashvili, G., Plante, A., Doktorova, M. & Weinstein, H. Ca²⁺-dependent mechanism of membrane insertion and destabilization by the SARS-CoV-2 fusion peptide. Biophys. J. 120, 1105–1119 (2021).
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Lai, A. L. & Freed, J. H. SARS-CoV-2 fusion peptide has a greater membrane perturbating effect than SARS-CoV with Highly specific dependence on Ca²⁺. J. Mol. Biol. 433, 166946 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Alsaadi, E. A. J., Neuman, B. W. & Jones, I. M. A fusion peptide in the spike protein of MERS coronavirus. Viruses 11, 825 (2019).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dingens, A. S., Haddox, H. K., Overbaugh, J. & Bloom, J. D. Comprehensive mapping of HIV-1 escape from a broadly neutralizing antibody. Cell Host Microbe 21, 777–787.e4 (2017).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Greaney, A. J. et al. Complete mapping of mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain that escape antibody recognition. Cell Host Microbe 29, 44–57.e9 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Delgado, J., Radusky, L. G., Cianferoni, D. & Serrano, L. FoldX 5.0: working with RNA, small molecules and a new graphical interface. Bioinformatics 35, 4168–4169 (2019).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Woodall, N. B. et al. De novo design of tyrosine and serine kinase-driven protein switches. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 28, 762–770 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Yu, S. et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike engagement of ACE2 primes S2’ site cleavage and fusion initiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2111199119 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kreutzberger, A. J. B. et al. SARS-CoV-2 requires acidic pH to infect cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2209514119 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Singh, P., Mukherji, S., Basak, S., Hoffmann, M. & Das, D. K. Dynamic Ca²⁺ sensitivity stimulates the evolved SARS-CoV-2 spike strain-mediated membrane fusion for enhanced entry. Cell Rep. 39, 110694 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ma, Y. et al. Spike substitution T813S increases Sarbecovirus fusogenicity by enhancing the usage of TMPRSS2. PLoS Pathog. 19, e1011123 (2023).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Stevaert, A. et al. Impact of SARS-CoV-2 spike mutations on its activation by TMPRSS2 and the alternative TMPRSS13 protease. mBio. 13, e0137622 (2022).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Shirato, K., Kanou, K., Kawase, M. & Matsuyama, S. Clinical isolates of human coronavirus 229E bypass the endosome for cell entry. J. Virol. 91, e01387–16 (2017).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ruiz-Aravena, M. et al. Ecology, evolution and spillover of coronaviruses from bats. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 20, 299–314 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Olson, C. A., Wu, N. C. & Sun, R. A comprehensive biophysical description of pairwise epistasis throughout an entire protein domain. Curr. Biol. 24, 2643–2651 (2014).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Fehr, A. R. & Yu, D. Human cytomegalovirus gene UL21a encodes a short-lived cytoplasmic protein and facilitates virus replication in fibroblasts. J. Virol. 84, 291–302 (2010).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Warming, S., Costantino, N., Court, D. L., Jenkins, N. A. & Copeland, N. G. Simple and highly efficient BAC recombineering using galK selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, e36 (2005).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Kobert, K., Flouri, T. & Stamatakis, A. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics 30, 614–620 (2014).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Cock, P. J. et al. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 25, 1422–1423 (2009).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kumar, B. et al. Assembly and entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2): evaluation using virus-like particles. Cells 10, 853 (2021).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Qing, E. et al. Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins in cell entry: control elements in the amino-terminal domains. mBio 12, e0159021 (2021).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Qing, E., Hantak, M., Perlman, S. & Gallagher, T. Distinct roles for sialoside and protein receptors in coronavirus infection. mBio. 11, e02764–19 (2020).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Whitt, M. A. Generation of VSV pseudotypes using recombinant DeltaG-VSV for studies on virus entry, identification of entry inhibitors, and immune responses to vaccines. J. Virol. Methods 169, 365–374 (2010).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Qing, E., Hantak, M. P., Galpalli, G. G. & Gallagher, T. Evaluating MERS-CoV entry pathways. Methods Mol. Biol. 2099, 9–20 (2020).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Stothard, P. The sequence manipulation suite: JavaScript programs for analyzing and formatting protein and DNA sequences. Biotechniques 28, 1102 (2000). 1104.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Benson, D. A. et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D36–D42 (2013).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Wu, N. For Publication. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10841475 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) R21 AI178391 (T.G.), R00 AI170996 (L.-Y.R.W.), P01 AI060699 (S.P.), R01 AI129269 (S.P.), the Searle Scholars Program (N.C.W.) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant INV-004923 (I.A.W.).

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Ruipeng Lei, Enya Qing.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Biochemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
Ruipeng Lei, Natalie So, Wenhao O. Ouyang & Nicholas C. Wu
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA
Enya Qing & Tom Gallagher
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA
Abby Odle, Stanley Perlman & Lok-Yin Roy Wong
Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA
Meng Yuan & Ian A. Wilson
Center for Virus-Host Innate Immunity, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA
Chaminda D. Gunawardene & Lok-Yin Roy Wong
Department of Microbiology, Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA
Chaminda D. Gunawardene & Lok-Yin Roy Wong
Center for Biophysics and Quantitative Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
Timothy J. C. Tan & Nicholas C. Wu
Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
Natalie So
The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA
Ian A. Wilson
Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA
Stanley Perlman
Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
Nicholas C. Wu
Carle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
Nicholas C. Wu

Authors

Ruipeng Lei
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Enya Qing
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Abby Odle
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Meng Yuan
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Chaminda D. Gunawardene
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Timothy J. C. Tan
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Natalie So
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Wenhao O. Ouyang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Ian A. Wilson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Tom Gallagher
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Stanley Perlman
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Nicholas C. Wu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Lok-Yin Roy Wong
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.L., E.Q., T.G., S.P., N.C.W., and L.-Y.R.W. conceived and designed the study. L.-Y.R.W., R.L., A.O., and C.D.G. performed the deep mutational scanning experiments. N.C.W. and N.T.Y.S analyzed the deep mutational scanning data. R.L., T.J.C.T., and W.O.O. expressed and purified the antibodies. E.Q. performed the functional characterization experiments. M.Y. and I.A.W. performed the biolayer interferometry experiment. L.-Y.R.W. and N.C.W. wrote the paper and all authors reviewed and/or edited the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tom Gallagher, Stanley Perlman, Nicholas C. Wu or Lok-Yin Roy Wong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

N.C.W. consults for HeliXon. The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks X, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Peer Review File

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lei, R., Qing, E., Odle, A. et al. Functional and antigenic characterization of SARS-CoV-2 spike fusion peptide by deep mutational scanning. Nat Commun 15, 4056 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48104-8

Download citation

Received: 05 December 2023
Accepted: 16 April 2024
Published: 14 May 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48104-8

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.