Júlia Mestres-Truyol

Predicting SARS-CoV-2 mutations is difficult, but predicting recurrent mutations driven by the host, such as those caused by host deaminases, is feasible. We used machine learning to predict which positions from the SARS-CoV-2 genome will hold a recurrent mutation and which mutations will be the most recurrent. We used data from April 2021 that we separated into three sets: a training set, a validation set, and an independent test set. For the test set, we obtained a specificity value of 0.69, a sensitivity value of 0.79, and an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.8, showing that the prediction of recurrent SARS-CoV-2 mutations is feasible. Subsequently, we compared our predictions with updated data from January 2022, showing that some of the false positives in our prediction model become true positives later on. The most important variables detected by the model’s Shapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) are the nucleotide that mutates and RNA reactivity. This is consistent with the SARS-CoV-2 mutational bias pattern and the preference of some host deaminases for specific sequences and RNA secondary structures. We extend our investigation by analyzing the mutations from the variants of concern Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, and Omicron. Finally, we analyzed amino acid changes by looking at the predicted recurrent mutations in the M-pro and spike proteins.

In this review, we collected 1765 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) M-pro inhibitors from the bibliography and other sources, such as the COVID Moonshot project and the ChEMBL database. This set of inhibitors includes only those compounds whose inhibitory capacity, mainly expressed as the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) value, against M-pro from SARS-CoV-2 has been determined. Several covalent warheads are used to treat covalent and non-covalent inhibitors separately. Chemical space, the variation of the IC₅₀ inhibitory activity when measured by different methods or laboratories, and the influence of 1,4-dithiothreitol (DTT) are discussed. When available, we have collected the values of inhibition of viral replication measured with a cellular antiviral assay and expressed as half maximal effective concentration (EC₅₀) values, and their possible relationship to inhibitory potency against M-pro is analyzed. Finally, the most potent covalent and non-covalent inhibitors that simultaneously inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 M-pro and the virus replication in vitro are discussed.

This review makes a critical evaluation of 61 peer‐reviewed manuscripts that use a docking step in a virtual screening (VS) protocol to predict SARS‐CoV‐2 M‐pro (M‐pro) inhibitors in approved or investigational drugs. Various manuscripts predict different compounds, even when they use a similar initial dataset and methodology, and most of them do not validate their methodology or results. In addition, a set of known 150 SARS‐CoV‐2 M‐pro inhibitors extracted from the literature and a second set of 81 M‐pro inhibitors and 113 inactive compounds obtained from the COVID Moonshot project were used to evaluate the reliability of using docking scores as feasible predictors of the potency of a SARS‐CoV‐2 M‐pro inhibitor. Using two SARS‐CoV‐2 M‐pro structures and five protein‐ligand docking programs, we proved that the correlation between the pIC₅₀ and docking scores is not good. Neither was any correlation found between the pIC₅₀ and the ∆G calculated with an MM‐GBSA method. When a group of experimentally known inactive compounds was added, neither the docking scores or the ∆G were able to distinguish between compounds with or without M‐pro experimental inhibitory activity. Performances improved when covalent and noncovalent inhibitors were treated separately, but were not good enough to fully support using a docking score as a cutoff value for selecting new putative M‐pro inhibitors or predicting the relative bioactivity of a compound by comparison with a reference compound. The two sets of known SARS‐CoV‐2 M‐pro inhibitors presented here could be used for validating future VS protocols which aim to predict M‐pro inhibitors.