Structure of mouse coronavirus spike protein complexed with receptor reveals mechanism for viral entry

Jian Shang, Yushun Wan, Chang Liu, Boyd Yount, Kendra Gully, Yang Yang, Ashley Auerbach, Guiqing Peng, Ralph Baric, Fang Li, Jian Shang, Yushun Wan, Chang Liu, Boyd Yount, Kendra Gully, Yang Yang, Ashley Auerbach, Guiqing Peng, Ralph Baric, Fang Li

Abstract

Coronaviruses recognize a variety of receptors using different domains of their envelope-anchored spike protein. How these diverse receptor recognition patterns affect viral entry is unknown. Mouse hepatitis coronavirus (MHV) is the only known coronavirus that uses the N-terminal domain (NTD) of its spike to recognize a protein receptor, CEACAM1a. Here we determined the cryo-EM structure of MHV spike complexed with mouse CEACAM1a. The trimeric spike contains three receptor-binding S1 heads sitting on top of a trimeric membrane-fusion S2 stalk. Three receptor molecules bind to the sides of the spike trimer, where three NTDs are located. Receptor binding induces structural changes in the spike, weakening the interactions between S1 and S2. Using protease sensitivity and negative-stain EM analyses, we further showed that after protease treatment of the spike, receptor binding facilitated the dissociation of S1 from S2, allowing S2 to transition from pre-fusion to post-fusion conformation. Together these results reveal a new role of receptor binding in MHV entry: in addition to its well-characterized role in viral attachment to host cells, receptor binding also induces the conformational change of the spike and hence the fusion of viral and host membranes. Our study provides new mechanistic insight into coronavirus entry and highlights the diverse entry mechanisms used by different viruses.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Overall structure of MHV spike…
Fig 1. Overall structure of MHV spike protein/CEACAM1a complex.
(A) Cryo-EM density map of MHV spike ectodomain/CEACAM1a complex. Left: side view. Right: top view. The trimeric MHV spike ectodomain (S-e) is in the pre-fusion state. Each monomeric subunit of MHV S-e is colored differently and CEACAM1A is colored in blue. (B) Atomic structure of MHV S-e/CEACAM1a complex. The molecules and subunits are colored in the same way as in panel (A). The views are also the same as in panel (A). The D4 domain of CEACAM1a had weak densities and hence its atomic model was not built.
Fig 2. Detailed structure of MHV spike…
Fig 2. Detailed structure of MHV spike protein/CEACAM1a complex.
(A) Schematic drawing of MHV S-e. S1: receptor-binding subunit. S2: membrane-fusion subunit. GCN4-His6: GCN4 trimerization tag followed by His6 tag. S1-NTD: N-terminal domain of S1. S1-CTD: C-terminal domain of S1. CH: central helix. FP: fusion peptide. HR-N and HR-C: heptad repeats N and C, respectively. (B) Structure of a monomeric subunit of MHV S-e/CEACAM1a complex. The structural elements of MHV S-e are colored in the same way as in panel (A). CEACAM1a is colored in blue. (C) Binding interactions between recombinant CEACAM1a (with a C-terminal Fc tag) and recombinant MHV S1-NTD or recombinant MHV S-e (with a C-terminal His6 tag) were measured using AlphaScreen assay. PBS and MERS-CoV S1-CTD, neither of which binds CEACAM1a, served as negative controls for MHV S-e and MHV S1-NTD. The error bars indicate standard deviation (SD) (n = 5). N.S.: statistically not significant (P > 0.05 in two tailed t-test).
Fig 3. CEACAM1a-induced structural change of MHV…
Fig 3. CEACAM1a-induced structural change of MHV spike.
(A) Comparison of chain traces of S1-NTD in receptor-bound MHV S-e (colored in orange) and that in unliganded MHV S-e (colored in green), with the S2 subunits from the two S-e molecules aligned together. (B) Comparison of buried surface areas of S1 and S2 in receptor-bound MHV S-e trimer and unliganded MHV S-e trimer. Here the S1 and S2 are defined as regions before and after residue 730 (Fig 2A), respectively. (C-E) Same as in panel (A), except that unliganded MHV S-e is replaced by unliganded HKU1 S-e (PDB ID: 5I08; colored in magenta; panel C), unliganded SARS-CoV S-e (PDB ID: 5X5F; colored in cyan; panel D), or unliganded MERS-CoV S-e (PDB ID: 5X8; colored in dark green; panel E).
Fig 4. Receptor-facilitated proteolysis of MHV spike.
Fig 4. Receptor-facilitated proteolysis of MHV spike.
(A) Western blot analysis of virus-surface MHV spike that had been cleaved by trypsin in the presence or absence of CEACAM1a. Different concentrations of trypsin were used. Here only protein fragments containing the C-terminal C9 tag (i.e., MHV spike, S2 and S2’, but not S1) could be detected since an antibody targeting the C-terminal C9 tag of MHV spike was used for the Western blot analysis. The result showed that receptor binding enhanced the protease sensitivity of MHV spike and produced more cleaved fragments (particularly S2’). (B) Silver staining analyses of recombinant MHV S-e that had been subjected to a double proteolysis assay. Specifically, recombinant MHV S-e molecules were first treated with low concentration of trypsin. Then half of the trypsin-cleaved products were incubated with CEACAM1a, while the other half were not. Subsequently both halves were treated with protease K. Here all protein fragments (i.e., MHV S-e, S1, S2 and S2’) could be detected as silver staining was used for the detection. The result showed that receptor treatment of the trypsin-cleaved MHV S-e led to a protease K-resistant S2’ fragment, suggesting that CEACAM1a binding facilitated the already cleaved MHV S-e to transition from pre-fusion to post-fusion conformation. See text for more discussion.
Fig 5. Negative-stain EM image of MHV…
Fig 5. Negative-stain EM image of MHV spike treated with protease in the presence or absence of CEACAM1a.
(A) MHV S-e without any protease treatment. All of the S-e molecules were in the pre-fusion state. (B) MHV S-e treated with low concentration of trypsin. All of the S-e molecules were in the pre-fusion state. (C) MHV S-e treated with high concentration of trypsin. 11.75% of the S-e molecules were in the post-fusion conformation (featured by the rod-like structure). (D) MHV S-e treated with low concentration of trypsin and incubated with CECAAM1a. All of the S-e molecules were in the pre-fusion state. (E) MHV S-e treated with low concentration of trypsin and incubated with urea. All of the S-e molecules were in the post-fusion state. (F) MHV S-e treated with high concentration of trypsin and incubated with CEACAM1a. 50.9% of the S-e molecules were in the post-fusion conformation. 2D averages of the S-e particles were shown as insets of each panel.
Fig 6. Proposed molecular mechanism of MHV…
Fig 6. Proposed molecular mechanism of MHV entry.
(A) Virus-surface MHV spike in the pre-fusion state. Each monomeric subunit of MHV spike trimer is colored differently. (B) Receptor binding by MHV spike. Host cell-surface CEACAM1a is colored in blue. Receptor binding triggers conformational changes in MHV spike, weakening the S1/S2 interactions. Although in vitro the receptor binds to MHV spike in an angle perpendicular to the spike, in vivo the receptor would need to bend in order to approach the receptor-binding sites in MHV spike. (C) Receptor-bound MHV spike is cleaved by proteases at two sites: S1/S2 site and S2' site. (D) Receptor facilitates S1 to dissociate from S2 through receptor-induced conformational changes in the spike, tension generated by potential bending of the receptor, and receptor-facilitated proteolysis of the spike. (E) Hypothetical intermediate state of MHV spike as proposed by many previous studies. (F) MHV spike transitions to the post-fusion state, leading to membrane fusion.

References

    1. Li F. Receptor recognition mechanisms of coronaviruses: a decade of structural studies. J Virol. 2015;89(4):1954–64. Epub 2014/11/28. 10.1128/JVI.02615-14
    1. Li F. Structure, Function, and Evolution of Coronavirus Spike Proteins. Annual review of virology. 2016;3(1):237–61. Epub 2016/09/01. 10.1146/annurev-virology-110615-042301 .
    1. Perlman S, Netland J. Coronaviruses post-SARS: update on replication and pathogenesis. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2009;7(6):439–50. 10.1038/nrmicro2147 WOS:000266451100012.
    1. Spaan W, Cavanagh D, Horzinek MC. Coronaviruses: structure and genome expression. J Gen Virol. 1988;69 (Pt 12):2939–52. Epub 1988/12/01. 10.1099/0022-1317-69-12-2939 .
    1. Gonzaalez JM, Gomez-Puertas P, Cavanagh D, Gorbalenya AE, Enjuanes L. A comparative sequence analysis to revise the current taxonomy of the family Coronaviridae. Archives of Virology. 2003;148(11):2207–35. 10.1007/s00705-003-0162-1 WOS:000186399900009.
    1. Walls AC, Tortorici MA, Bosch BJ, Frenz B, Rottier PJ, DiMaio F, et al. Cryo-electron microscopy structure of a coronavirus spike glycoprotein trimer. Nature. 2016;531(7592):114–7. Epub 2016/02/09. 10.1038/nature16988 .
    1. Kirchdoerfer RN, Cottrell CA, Wang N, Pallesen J, Yassine HM, Turner HL, et al. Pre-fusion structure of a human coronavirus spike protein. Nature. 2016;531(7592):118–21. Epub 2016/03/05. 10.1038/nature17200 .
    1. Yuan Y, Cao D, Zhang Y, Ma J, Qi J, Wang Q, et al. Cryo-EM structures of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV spike glycoproteins reveal the dynamic receptor binding domains. Nature communications. 2017;8:15092 Epub 2017/04/11. 10.1038/ncomms15092 .
    1. Walls AC, Tortorici MA, Frenz B, Snijder J, Li W, Rey FA, et al. Glycan shield and epitope masking of a coronavirus spike protein observed by cryo-electron microscopy. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2016;23(10):899–905. Epub 2016/09/13. 10.1038/nsmb.3293 .
    1. Shang J, Zheng Y, Yang Y, Liu C, Geng Q, Luo C, et al. Cryo-EM structure of infectious bronchitis coronavirus spike protein reveals structural and functional evolution of coronavirus spike proteins. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(4):e1007009 Epub 2018/04/24. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007009
    1. Shang J, Zheng Y, Yang Y, Liu C, Geng Q, Tai W, et al. Cryo-Electron Microscopy Structure of Porcine Deltacoronavirus Spike Protein in the Prefusion State. J Virol. 2018;92(4). Epub 2017/10/27. 10.1128/jvi.01556-17
    1. Song W, Gui M, Wang X, Xiang Y. Cryo-EM structure of the SARS coronavirus spike glycoprotein in complex with its host cell receptor ACE2. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(8):e1007236 Epub 2018/08/14. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007236
    1. Walls AC, Tortorici MA, Snijder J, Xiong X, Bosch BJ, Rey FA, et al. Tectonic conformational changes of a coronavirus spike glycoprotein promote membrane fusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(42):11157–62. Epub 2017/10/27. 10.1073/pnas.1708727114
    1. Li F, Berardi M, Li WH, Farzan M, Dormitzer PR, Harrison SC. Conformational states of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike protein ectodomain. Journal of Virology. 2006;80(14):6794–800. 10.1128/JVI.02744-05 ISI:000238770000008.
    1. Millet JK, Whittaker GR. Host cell entry of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus after two-step, furin-mediated activation of the spike protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(42):15214–9. Epub 2014/10/08. 10.1073/pnas.1407087111
    1. Millet JK, Whittaker GR. Host cell proteases: Critical determinants of coronavirus tropism and pathogenesis. Virus Res. 2015;202:120–34. Epub 2014/12/03. 10.1016/j.virusres.2014.11.021
    1. Heald-Sargent T, Gallagher T. Ready, set, fuse! The coronavirus spike protein and acquisition of fusion competence. Viruses. 2012;4(4):557–80. Epub 2012/05/17. 10.3390/v4040557
    1. Gui M, Song W, Zhou H, Xu J, Chen S, Xiang Y, et al. Cryo-electron microscopy structures of the SARS-CoV spike glycoprotein reveal a prerequisite conformational state for receptor binding. Cell Res. 2017;27(1):119–29. Epub 2016/12/23. 10.1038/cr.2016.152
    1. Williams RK, Jiang GS, Holmes KV. Receptor for Mouse Hepatitis-Virus Is a Member of the Carcinoembryonic Antigen Family of Glycoproteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1991;88(13):5533–6. ISI:A1991FU90100012. 10.1073/pnas.88.13.5533
    1. Dveksler GS, Pensiero MN, Cardellichio CB, Williams RK, Jiang GS, Holmes KV, et al. Cloning of the Mouse Hepatitis-Virus (Mhv) Receptor—Expression in Human and Hamster-Cell Lines Confers Susceptibility to Mhv. Journal of Virology. 1991;65(12):6881–91. ISI:A1991GP87800059.
    1. Beauchemin N, Draber P, Dveksler G, Gold P, Gray-Owen S, Grunert F, et al. Redefined nomenclature for members of the carcinoembryonic antigen family. Experimental Cell Research. 1999;252(2):243–9. ISI:000083650500001. 10.1006/excr.1999.4610
    1. Peng GQ, Sun DW, Rajashankar KR, Qian ZH, Holmes KV, Li F. Crystal structure of mouse coronavirus receptor-binding domain complexed with its murine receptor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;108(26):10696–701. 10.1073/pnas.1104306108 ISI:000292251000064.
    1. Matsuyama S, Taguchi F. Receptor-induced conformational changes of murine coronavirus spike protein. J Virol. 2002;76(23):11819–26. Epub 2002/11/05. 10.1128/JVI.76.23.11819-11826.2002
    1. Zelus BD, Schickli JH, Blau DM, Weiss SR, Holmes KV. Conformational changes in the spike glycoprotein of murine coronavirus are induced at 37 degrees C either by soluble murine CEACAM1 receptors or by pH 8. J Virol. 2003;77(2):830–40. Epub 2002/12/28. 10.1128/JVI.77.2.830-840.2003
    1. Li F, Li WH, Farzan M, Harrison SC. Structure of SARS coronavirus spike receptor-binding domain complexed with receptor. Science. 2005;309(5742):1864–8. 10.1126/science.1116480 ISI:000231989500052.
    1. Kirchdoerfer RN, Wang N, Pallesen J, Wrapp D, Turner HL, Cottrell CA, et al. Stabilized coronavirus spikes are resistant to conformational changes induced by receptor recognition or proteolysis. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):15701 Epub 2018/10/26. 10.1038/s41598-018-34171-7
    1. Klaile E, Vorontsova O, Sigmundsson K, Muller MM, Singer BB, Ofverstedt LG, et al. The CEACAM1 N-terminal Ig domain mediates cis- and trans-binding and is essential for allosteric rearrangements of CEACAM1 microclusters. The Journal of cell biology. 2009;187(4):553–67. Epub 2009/12/02. 10.1083/jcb.200904149
    1. Volkmer H, Schreiber J, Rathjen FG. Regulation of adhesion by flexible ectodomains of IgCAMs. Neurochemical research. 2013;38(6):1092–9. Epub 2012/10/12. 10.1007/s11064-012-0888-9 .
    1. Belouzard S, Chu VC, Whittaker GR. Activation of the SARS coronavirus spike protein via sequential proteolytic cleavage at two distinct sites. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2009;106(14):5871–6. 10.1073/pnas.0809524106 ISI:000264967500075.
    1. Burkard C, Verheije MH, Wicht O, van Kasteren SI, van Kuppeveld FJ, Haagmans BL, et al. Coronavirus cell entry occurs through the endo-/lysosomal pathway in a proteolysis-dependent manner. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10(11):e1004502 Epub 2014/11/07. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004502
    1. Zheng Y, Shang J, Yang Y, Liu C, Wan Y, Geng Q, et al. Lysosomal Proteases Are a Determinant of Coronavirus Tropism. J Virol. 2018;92(24). Epub 2018/09/28. 10.1128/jvi.01504-18
    1. White JM, Delos SE, Brecher M, Schornberg K. Structures and mechanisms of viral membrane fusion proteins: multiple variations on a common theme. Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology. 2008;43(3):189–219. Epub 2008/06/24. 10.1080/10409230802058320
    1. Skehel JJ, Wiley DC. Receptor binding and membrane fusion in virus entry: The influenza hemagglutinin. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 2000;69:531–69. ISI:000089735700018. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.69.1.531
    1. Peng G, Yang Y, Pasquarella JR, Xu L, Qian Z, Holmes KV, et al. Structural and Molecular Evidence Suggesting Coronavirus-driven Evolution of Mouse Receptor. J Biol Chem. 2017;292(6):2174–81. Epub 2016/12/31. 10.1074/jbc.M116.764266
    1. Mastronarde DN. Automated electron microscope tomography using robust prediction of specimen movements. Journal of structural biology. 2005;152(1):36–51. Epub 2005/09/27. 10.1016/j.jsb.2005.07.007 .
    1. Li X, Mooney P, Zheng S, Booth CR, Braunfeld MB, Gubbens S, et al. Electron counting and beam-induced motion correction enable near-atomic-resolution single-particle cryo-EM. Nature methods. 2013;10(6):584–90. Epub 2013/05/07. 10.1038/nmeth.2472
    1. Zhang K. Gctf: Real-time CTF determination and correction. Journal of structural biology. 2016;193(1):1–12. Epub 2015/11/26. 10.1016/j.jsb.2015.11.003
    1. Scheres SH. RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. Journal of structural biology. 2012;180(3):519–30. Epub 2012/09/25. 10.1016/j.jsb.2012.09.006
    1. Chen S, McMullan G, Faruqi AR, Murshudov GN, Short JM, Scheres SH, et al. High-resolution noise substitution to measure overfitting and validate resolution in 3D structure determination by single particle electron cryomicroscopy. Ultramicroscopy. 2013;135:24–35. Epub 2013/07/23. 10.1016/j.ultramic.2013.06.004
    1. Goddard TD, Huang CC, Ferrin TE. Visualizing density maps with UCSF Chimera. J Struct Biol. 2007;157(1):281–7. 10.1016/j.jsb.2006.06.010 .
    1. Emsley P, Lohkamp B, Scott WG, Cowtan K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010;66(Pt 4):486–501. 10.1107/S0907444910007493
    1. Adams PD, Afonine PV, Bunkoczi G, Chen VB, Davis IW, Echols N, et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010;66(Pt 2):213–21. 10.1107/S0907444909052925
    1. Chen VB, Arendall WB,.3rd, Headd JJ, Keedy DA, Immormino RM, Kapral GJ, et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010;66(Pt 1):12–21. 10.1107/S0907444909042073
    1. Barad BA, Echols N, Wang RY, Cheng Y, DiMaio F, Adams PD, et al. EMRinger: side chain-directed model and map validation for 3D cryo-electron microscopy. Nat Methods. 2015;12(10):943–6. 10.1038/nmeth.3541
    1. Cassel JA, Blass BE, Reitz AB, Pawlyk AC. Development of a novel nonradiometric assay for nucleic acid binding to TDP-43 suitable for high-throughput screening using AlphaScreen technology. J Biomol Screen. 2010;15(9):1099–106. Epub 2010/09/22. 10.1177/1087057110382778
    1. Liu C, Yang Y, Chen L, Lin YL, Li F. A unified mechanism for aminopeptidase N-based tumor cell motility and tumor-homing therapy. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(50):34520–9. Epub 2014/11/02. 10.1074/jbc.M114.566802
    1. Yang Y, Du L, Liu C, Wang L, Ma C, Tang J, et al. Receptor usage and cell entry of bat coronavirus HKU4 provide insight into bat-to-human transmission of MERS coronavirus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(34):12516–21. Epub 2014/08/13. 10.1073/pnas.1405889111
    1. Yount B, Denison MR, Weiss SR, Baric RS. Systematic assembly of a full-length infectious cDNA of mouse hepatitis virus strain A59. J Virol. 2002;76(21):11065–78. Epub 2002/10/09. 10.1128/JVI.76.21.11065-11078.2002
    1. Krissinel E, Henrick K. Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state. J Mol Biol. 2007;372(3):774–97. Epub 2007/08/08. 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.022 .

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe