Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Immune evasion and ACE2 binding affinity contribute to SARS-CoV-2 evolution

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 7, pages 1457–1466 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome could confer resistance to pre-existing antibodies and/or increased transmissibility. The recently emerged Omicron subvariants exhibit a strong tendency for immune evasion, suggesting adaptive evolution. However, because previous studies have been limited to specific lineages or subsets of mutations, the overall evolutionary trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 and the underlying driving forces are still not fully understood. Here we analysed all open-access SARS-CoV-2 genomes (up to November 2022) and correlated the mutation incidence and fitness changes with the impacts of mutations on immune evasion and ACE2 binding affinity. Our results show that the Omicron lineage had an accelerated mutation rate in the RBD region, while the mutation incidence in other genomic regions did not change dramatically over time. Mutations in the RBD region exhibited a lineage-specific pattern and tended to become more aggregated over time, and the mutation incidence was positively correlated with the strength of antibody pressure. Additionally, mutation incidence was positively correlated with changes in ACE2 binding affinity, but with a lower correlation coefficient than with immune evasion. In contrast, the effect of mutations on fitness was more closely correlated with changes in ACE2 binding affinity than with immune evasion. Our findings suggest that immune evasion and ACE2 binding affinity play significant and diverse roles in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
Fig. 2: Convergent evolution of the RBD sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
Fig. 3: The correlation between the incidence of RBD mutations and humoral immune pressure.
Fig. 4: Immune evasion and ACE2 binding affinity drove the evolution of SARS-CoV-2.

Data availability

All data files generated in this study were uploaded to the GitHub website (https://github.com/ipplol/SARS2EVO)44.

Code availability

All custom scripts used in this study were uploaded to the GitHub website (https://github.com/ipplol/SARS2EVO)44.

References

  1. Ozono, S. et al. SARS-CoV-2 D614G spike mutation increases entry efficiency with enhanced ACE2-binding affinity. Nat. Commun. 12, 848 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu, L. et al. Striking antibody evasion manifested by the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 602, 676–681 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Telenti, A., Hodcroft, E. B. & Robertson, D. L. The evolution and biology of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a041390 (2022).

  4. Markov, P. V., Katzourakis, A. & Stilianakis, N. I. Antigenic evolution will lead to new SARS-CoV-2 variants with unpredictable severity. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 251–252 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Plante, J. A. et al. Spike mutation D614G alters SARS-CoV-2 fitness. Nature 592, 116–121 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu, Y. et al. The N501Y spike substitution enhances SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. Nature 602, 294–299 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang, P. et al. Antibody resistance of SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.351 and B.1.1.7. Nature 593, 130–135 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baum, A. et al. Antibody cocktail to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein prevents rapid mutational escape seen with individual antibodies. Science 369, 1014–1018 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Greaney, A. J. et al. Comprehensive mapping of mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain that affect recognition by polyclonal human plasma antibodies. Cell Host Microbe 29, 463–476.e466 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.e49 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cao, Y. et al. Omicron escapes the majority of existing SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. Nature 602, 657–663 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Starr, T. N. et al. Shifting mutational constraints in the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain during viral evolution. Science 377, 420–424 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cao, Y. et al. BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection. Nature 608, 593–602 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cao, Y. et al. Imprinted SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity induces convergent Omicron RBD evolution. Nature 614, 521–529 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Focosi, D., Quiroga, R., McConnell, S., Johnson, M. C. & Casadevall, A. Convergent evolution in SARS-CoV-2 spike creates a variant soup from which new COVID-19 waves emerge. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24, 2264 (2023).

  16. Ito, J. et al. Convergent evolution of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants leading to the emergence of BQ.1.1 variant. Nat. Commun. 14, 2671 (2023).

  17. Tuekprakhon, A. et al. Antibody escape of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 from vaccine and BA.1 serum. Cell 185, 2422–2433 e2413 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Spratt, A. N. et al. Continued complexity of mutations in Omicron sublineages. Biomedicines 10, 2593 (2022).

  19. Turakhia, Y. et al. Ultrafast Sample placement on Existing tRees (UShER) enables real-time phylogenetics for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Nat. Genet. 53, 809–816 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dhar, M. S. et al. Genomic characterization and epidemiology of an emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant in Delhi, India. Science 374, 995–999 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. van Dorp, L. et al. No evidence for increased transmissibility from recurrent mutations in SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Commun. 11, 5986 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Richard, M. et al. Factors determining human-to-human transmissibility of zoonotic pathogens via contact. Curr. Opin. Virol. 22, 7–12 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hadfield, J. et al. Nextstrain: real-time tracking of pathogen evolution. Bioinformatics 34, 4121–4123 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tay, J. H., Porter, A. F., Wirth, W. & Duchene, S. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is driven by acceleration of the substitution rate. Mol. Biol. Evol. 39, msac013 (2022).

  25. Hill, V. et al. The origins and molecular evolution of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in the UK. Virus Evol. 8, veac080 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Mallapaty, S. Where did Omicron come from? Three key theories. Nature 602, 26–28 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Robbiani, D. F. et al. Convergent antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent individuals. Nature 584, 437–442 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. McCallum, M. et al. N-terminal domain antigenic mapping reveals a site of vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2. Cell 184, 2332–2347 e2316 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tonkin-Hill, G. et al. Patterns of within-host genetic diversity in SARS-CoV-2. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66857 (2021).

  30. Deinhardt-Emmer, S. et al. Early postmortem mapping of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in patients with COVID-19 and the correlation with tissue damage. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60361 (2021).

  31. Lauring, A. S. & Andino, R. Quasispecies theory and the behavior of RNA viruses. PLoS Pathog. 6, e1001005 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Shen, Z. et al. Genomic diversity of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Clin. Infect. Dis. 71, 713–720 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Park, Y. J. et al. Imprinted antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages. Science 378, 619–627 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Martin, D. P. et al. The emergence and ongoing convergent evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 N501Y lineages. Cell 184, 5189–5200 e5187 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Yue, C. et al. ACE2 binding and antibody evasion in enhanced transmissibility of XBB.1.5. Lancet Infect. Dis. 23, 278–280 (2023).

  36. Ou, J. et al. V367F mutation in SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD emerging during the early transmission phase enhances viral infectivity through increased human ACE2 receptor binding affinity. J. Virol. 95, e0061721 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moulana, A. et al. Compensatory epistasis maintains ACE2 affinity in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1. Nat. Commun. 13, 7011 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang, L., Liu, S., Tsoka, S. & Papageorgiou, L. G. Mathematical programming for piecewise linear regression analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 44, 156–167 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gkioulekas, I. & Papageorgiou, L. G. Piecewise regression analysis through information criteria using mathematical programming. Expert Syst. Appl. 121, 362–372 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Starr, T. N. et al. Deep mutational scanning of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals constraints on folding and ACE2 binding. Cell 182, 1295–1310 e1220 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Otwinowski, J., McCandlish, D. M. & Plotkin, J. B. Inferring the shape of global epistasis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E7550–E7558 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Subramanian, A. et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545–15550 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Starr, T. N. et al. Deep mutational scans for ACE2 binding, RBD expression, and antibody escape in the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 receptor-binding domains. PLoS Pathog. 18, e1010951 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Ma, W., Fu, H., Jian, F., Cao, Y. & Li, M. Immune evasion and ACE2 binding affinity contribute to SARS-CoV-2 evolution data and code. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/7954439 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the scientists around the globe for performing SARS-CoV-2 sequencing and surveillance analysis. This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 82161148009 to M.L.), the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. XDB38030400 to M.L.) and the Key Collaborative Research Program of the Alliance of International Science Organizations (grant no. ANSO-CR-KP-2022-09 to M.L.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and China National Center for Bioinformation, Beijing, China

    Wentai Ma, Haoyi Fu & Mingkun Li

  2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Wentai Ma, Haoyi Fu & Mingkun Li

  3. Biomedical Pioneering Innovation Center (BIOPIC), Peking University, Beijing, China

    Fanchong Jian & Yunlong Cao

  4. Changping Laboratory, Beijing, China

    Yunlong Cao

Authors
  1. Wentai Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haoyi Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fanchong Jian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yunlong Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mingkun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.L. designed the study. W.M. and M.L. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors. W.M., H.F. and F.J. performed the bioinformatics analyses. Y.C. and F.J. generated and supervised the analysis of the DMS and neutralization data.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yunlong Cao or Mingkun Li.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Oscar MacLean, Aiping Wu and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 The correlation between mutation count and collection date.

a) The correlation between nonsynonymous mutation count and collection date. Two hundred sequences were randomly selected from each month based on the collection date. The segmented regression line was fitted using automatic piecewise linear regression, and the mutation rate was estimated as the slope of the regression line. We conducted 100 samplings and added the resulting median and standard deviation of the estimated mutation rate on top of the regression line. T1 represents Dec 24, 2019, which is the collection date of the first open-access SARS-CoV-2 sequence. b) The correlation between nonsynonymous mutation count and collection date for major lineages. c) The correlation between synonymous mutation count and collection date. D) The correlation between synonymous mutation count and collection date for major lineages.

Extended Data Fig. 2 The convergent evolution of the RBD region in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

The color denoted the ratio of the mutation’s frequency to the frequency of all mutations in the particular lineage. The top five mutations occurring most frequently in each lineage are shown, while the sites with just one high-frequency mutation were excluded. The mutations that had been fixed in the lineage were labeled in grey. The antibody epitope groups that were evaded by the mutation in the right panel are labeled in the left panel.

Extended Data Fig. 3 The spectrum of non-synonymous mutations in the RBD region.

The ‘Top 5’ denotes the top five most frequent mutations observed in at least one lineage while ‘Other’ denotes the rest mutations. The unadjusted p-values were obtained from the two-sided Fisher’s exact test.

Extended Data Fig. 4 The correlation between the mutation incidence and immune escape score and ACE2 binding score at the individual mutation level in the SARS-CoV-2 RBD region.

Each dot in the plot represents an individual mutation. The Pearson correlation coefficient and two-sided unadjusted p-value are shown in each plot. The shading represents the 99% confidence interval.

Extended Data Fig. 5 The comparison of early-stage mutations and later-stage mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 RBD region in B and BA.2 lineages.

The early-stage mutations (Early, n=66 for B and n=34 for BA.2) were those identified in sequences collected at the first quartile of the time distribution of all mutations (the threshold for B macro-lineages: Oct 31, 2020; BA.2 lineage: May 12, 2022) and other mutations were defined as later-stage mutations (Later, n=66 for B and n=37 for BA.2). B lineage includes all its sub-lineages except the Omicron lineage. The upper part figures show the ACE2 binding score and immune escape score for different mutation types, while the bottom part figures show the proportion of ACE2 binding-enhancing and immune escape mutations for different mutation types. Random shows the background distribution of the metrics for different mutation types. The centre line denotes the median value, the black cross represents the mean value, the box represents the interquartile range (IQR), the whiskers extend to the furthest data point in each wing that is within 1.5 times the IQR value, and points represent outliers. The unadjusted p-value was obtained from the two-sided Wilcoxon test.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1 and Tables 1 and 2.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, W., Fu, H., Jian, F. et al. Immune evasion and ACE2 binding affinity contribute to SARS-CoV-2 evolution. Nat Ecol Evol 7, 1457–1466 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02123-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02123-8

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing