

feature articles
The search for a structural basis for therapeutic intervention against the SARS coronavirus
aCollege of Life Sciences, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, People's Republic of
China, bTsinghua–Nankai–IBP Joint Research Group for Structural Biology, Laboratory of Structural
Biology, Life Sciences Building, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic
of China, and cNational Laboratory of Biomacromolecules, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Beijing 100101, People's Republic of China
*Correspondence e-mail: [email protected]
The 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), caused by a previously unknown coronavirus called SARS-CoV, had profound social and economic impacts worldwide. Since then, structure–function studies of SARS-CoV proteins have provided a wealth of information that increases our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of SARS. While no effective therapy is currently available, considerable efforts have been made to develop vaccines and drugs to prevent SARS-CoV infection. In this review, some of the notable achievements made by SARS structural biology projects worldwide are examined and strategies for therapeutic intervention are discussed based on available SARS-CoV protein structures. To date, 12 structures have been determined by X-ray crystallography or NMR from the 28 proteins encoded by SARS-CoV. One key protein, the SARS-CoV main protease (Mpro), has been the focus of considerable structure-based drug discovery efforts. This article highlights the importance of structural biology and shows that structures for drug design can be rapidly determined in the event of an emerging infectious disease.
Keywords: drug design; SARS coronavirus; SARS-CoV.
1. Introduction
In 2003, a previously unidentified coronavirus, termed SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV),
was the aetiological agent for the worldwide epidemic responsible for approximately
8000 reported cases and 800 deaths (Drosten et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003
; Kuiken et al., 2003
; Peiris et al., 2003
), and its emergence was attributed to an animal-to-human interspecies transmission
(Prentice et al., 2004
). Coronaviruses are characterized as enveloped positive-stranded RNA viruses with
the largest known genomes and belong to the genus Coronavirus of the family Coronaviridae (Marra et al., 2003
; Rota et al., 2003
). Approximately 26 species of coronaviruses (CoVs) have been identified to date and
can be classified into three distinct groups on the basis of genome sequence and serological
reaction (Lai & Holmes, 2001
; Spaan & Cavanagh, 2004
). Prior to the SARS outbreak, very little attention was paid to the structure–function
studies of coronavirus proteins by researchers as this genus of virus predominantly
causes severe diseases in animals but comparatively mild diseases in humans, such
as common colds caused by human coronaviruses. While extensive research had been carried
out on model coronaviruses over the previous 20 years or so, little was understood
about underlying mechanisms such as viral assembly and viral replication/transcription
before the SARS outbreak. No licensed drugs are currently available and strategies
against coronavirus infection relied mainly on vaccines prior to the outbreak of SARS.
The global epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 had profound
social and economic impacts all over the world, but particularly in China where the
outbreak originated. Increased levels of support have been made available by governments
and funding agencies; great efforts have been made by researchers to understand the
origins of the SARS coronavirus, its interactions with the host, and the mechanisms
of coronavirus replication and transcription; and considerable work has been made
towards developing vaccines or anti-viral compounds to prevent SARS-CoV infection.
Structural biology has so far played an important role in providing information for
functional assignment of SARS-CoV proteins and for anti-viral drug discovery (Bartlam
et al., 2005).
As with many researchers in China, our group began work on SARS-CoV once the severity of the outbreak became apparent. Adopting a structural proteomics approach, a large project was initiated with strong support from the Chinese government and funding bodies. In the wake of the outbreak and the increased public awareness, other large projects such as SEPSDA (Sino-European Project on SARS Diagnostics and Antivirals, http://www.sepsda.org/) funded by the European Union and FSPS (Functional–Structural Proteomics of SARS CoV Related Proteins, http://visp.scripps.edu/SARS/) funded by NIAID and NIH have been established. A large part of their sphere of activity includes structural biology, aided by high-throughput technologies developed for structural genomics/proteomics. In this review, we will focus on achievements made by the structure–function studies of the SARS coronavirus proteins, and subsequent strategies for therapeutic intervention against SARS-CoV and other coronaviruses.
2. The SARS coronavirus
The SARS-CoV genome is approximately 29.7 kbp and is composed of at least 14 functional
open reading frames (ORFs) that encode 28 proteins covering three classes: two large
polyproteins (pp)1a and (pp)1ab that are cleaved into 16 non-structural proteins required
for viral RNA synthesis (and probably with other functions); four structural proteins
[the S, E, M and N proteins (see Table 1)] essential for viral assembly; and eight
accessory proteins that are thought unimportant in tissue culture but may provide
a selective advantage in the infected host (Table 1, Fig. 1
) (Marra et al., 2003
; Rota et al., 2003
; Ziebuhr, 2004
). Many of the 28 SARS-CoV proteins share low sequence similarity with other proteins,
including those from other viruses, indicating their uniqueness and hampering functional
assignment based on homology. Of these 28 SARS-CoV proteins, 12 protein structures
(X-ray crystallography or NMR) are available from the Protein Data Bank, thus providing
a starting point for therapeutic intervention against the SARS coronavirus.
‡Structure has been deposited in the Protein Data Bank but has not been published. |
![]() |
Figure 1 The SARS-CoV genome. Orange and blue triangles represent cleavage sites for the PLpro and Mpro, respectively. |
3. The replicase complex
The SARS-CoV replicase gene encodes 16 non-structural proteins (nsps) with multiple
enzymatic functions (Snijder et al., 2003), which are known or predicted to include types of enzymes that are common components
of the replication machinery of plus-strand RNA viruses. These enzymes are typically
not available or accessible in the host cell and are thus identified as potential
targets for anti-SARS drug design. They include: an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp,
nsp12), a 3C-like cysteine protease (Mpro or 3CLpro, nsp5), a papain-like protease (PLpro, nsp3), and a superfamily 1-like helicase (HEL1, nsp13). The replicase gene also
encodes proteins less commonly found in positive-strand RNA viruses, which are indicative
of 3′–5′ exoribonuclease activity (ExoN homolog, nsp14), endoribonuclease activity
(XendoU homolog, nsp15), adenosine diphosphate-ribose 1′′-phosphatase activity (ADRP,
nsp3) and ribose 2′-O-methyltransferase activity (2′-O-MT, nsp16) (Snijder et al., 2003
). These enzymes may therefore be related to the unique properties of coronavirus
replication and transcription. Finally, the replicase gene encodes another nine proteins,
of which little is known about their structure or function. Given the vital role of
the replicase proteins in the viral life cycle, elucidating their function and how
they interact to form the replicase complex is essential for determining strategies
for the design of anti-viral compounds. However, further structural and functional
studies of the replicase complex are still required for the discovery of anti-CoV
therapeutics.
Nsp5, more commonly known as the main protease (Mpro) or 3CLpro (for its similarity to 3C proteases), is the most widely investigated of the SARS-CoV
proteins. Its was reported in 2003, mere months after the outbreak, by our group (Yang et al., 2003) and by the San Diego based company Structural GenomiX (Fig. 2
a), although the first coronavirus Mpro structure was determined from transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) in 2002
(Anand et al., 2002
). The Mpro acts on 11 of the 14 cleavage sites on the replicase polyprotein to release the individual
components of the replicase complex, and is therefore a critically important target
for the discovery of anti-viral therapeutics. The coronavirus Mpro structures are characterized by two chymotrypsin-like β-barrel domains, similar to other viral and an additional C-terminal globular α-helical domain (Anand et al., 2002
, 2003
; Yang et al., 2003
). The Mpro functions as a dimer and relies on the C-terminal domain for dimerization (Fig. 3
a) (Shi et al., 2004
). A catalytic Cys–His dyad and the substrate binding sites are located in a cleft
between domains I and II.
![]() |
Figure 2 SARS-CoV replicase protein structures. (a) nsp5, the Mpro; (b) nsp3 ADRP domain; (c) nsp3 PLpro domain; (d) nsp7; (e) nsp8; (f) nsp9; (g) nsp10; and (h) nsp15. All structures are shown in ribbon representation and coloured according to secondary structure (α-helix red; β-strand yellow; coil green). Nsp8 is shown with two conformations superimposed. |
![]() |
Figure 3 (a) The Mpro dimer with bound peptidomimetic ester inhibitor N3. Mpro monomers are shown in ribbon representation and coloured red and blue. The peptidomimetic ester inhibitors (one per monomer) are shown in stick representation and coloured green. (b) The nsp7–nsp8 super-complex. The nsp7–nsp8 complex is shown in ribbon representation. Nsp7 is coloured green, one conformation of nsp8 is coloured blue and a second conformation of nsp8 is coloured orange. (c) The S protein fusion core. Shown from left to right are 1WYY (Duquerroy et al., 2005 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The substrate specificity of SARS-CoV Mpro has been well characterized, both biochemically and structurally (Hegyi & Ziebuhr,
2002; Anand et al., 2002
, 2003
; Yang et al., 2003
, 2005
). All coronavirus Mpros have an absolutely conserved Gln residue at the P1 position, whereas small residues
such as Ala, Ser and Gly are conserved at the P1′ position (Ziebuhr et al., 2000
). At the P2 position of SARS-CoV Mpro, Leu is strongly preferred, although other hydrophobic residues, such as Phe, Met
and Val, also occupy this position occasionally. No side-chain specificity is required
at the P3 position since the side chain of P3 orients toward the bulk solvent. Small
residues, such as Ala, Val, Thr and Pro are preferred at the P4 position. The structural
information provided for coronavirus Mpro to date will prove useful for researchers to design inhibitors targeting SARS-CoV
Mpro.
A number of strategies have been used to discover inhibitors targeting the coronavirus
Mpro with nanomolar or low micromolar binding affinities [see Yang et al. (2007) for a review]. Our group has designed peptidomimetic ester inhibitors based on the
natural N-terminal autocleavage substrate of the SARS-CoV Mpro and optimized using a structure-based approach (Fig. 3
a) (Yang et al., 2005
). Furthermore, owing to the remarkable conservation of the active sites across all
three coronavirus antigenic groups, our compounds have broad-spectrum activity against
all coronavirus Mpro. Other classes of compounds found to have activity against coronavirus Mpro include (Shie et al., 2005
), hexachlorophene and its analogues (Hsu et al., 2004
; Liu et al., 2005
), natural polyphenols (Chen, Lin et al., 2005
), isatin derivatives (Chen, Wang et al., 2005
), cinanserin (a serotonin agonist) (Chen, Gui et al., 2005
), interferons (Tan et al., 2004
), keto-glutamine analogues (Jain et al., 2004
), zinc conjugated compounds (Hsu et al., 2004
), aryl boronic acid compounds (Bacha et al., 2004
), quercetin-3-b-galactoside and its synthetic derivatives (Chen et al., 2006
), plant and lignoids (Wen et al., 2007
), benzotriazole (Wu et al., 2006
), coumarin derivative (Hamill et al., 2006
), and other compounds (Kaeppler et al., 2005
; Lu et al., 2006
; Tsai et al., 2006
). In addition to active site inhibitors, a second strategy is to inhibit the dimerization
of the Mpro and thus abolish its activity. This approach was first suggested in 2004 (Shi et al., 2004
) and one such inhibitor, an octapeptide designed on the basis of the SARS-CoV Mpro N-terminal sequence, was later reported (Wei et al., 2006
). This work, together with our own, suggests that the design of peptidomimetics is
one valid approach for the design of anti-viral therapeutics targeting the coronavirus
Mpro.
Nsp3 is a large multidomain protein of 1922 amino acids that is yielded by proteolytic
cleavage of the pp1a polyprotein at two sites by the papain-like protease (PLpro). Two crystal structures of the functional enzymatic domains of nsp3 have been determined:
the `X' domain with proposed ADP-ribose-1′′-phosphate dephosphorylation (ADRP) activity
(Saikatendu et al., 2005; Egloff et al., 2006
) and the papain-like protease (PLpro) domain (Ratta et al., 2006
). The `X' domain, also known as the ADRP domain, is conserved among all CoV (Putics
et al., 2005
) and is structurally related to macro-H2A-like fold proteins (Fig. 2
b). Interestingly, the work by Egloff and colleagues suggests that this `X' domain
actually has poor ADRP activity and efficiently binds poly(ADP-ribose) instead (Egloff
et al., 2006
), and its role in the viral life cycle remains unclear. Coronaviruses generally feature
two papain-like protease (PLpro) domains in nsp3, termed PL1pro and PL2pro. However, SARS-CoV encodes only one PLpro domain. Its structure was found to possess a `thumb–palm–fingers' fold related to
known deubiquitinating enzymes (Fig. 2
c). However, certain key features of nsp3 PLpro include a zinc-binding motif and a ubiquitin-like N-terminal domain, separating it
from other characterized deubiquitinating enzymes. The availability of the nsp3 PLpro structure helps to delineate the proteolytic processing at the consensus (LXGG) cleavage
site and provides details at the molecular level for the mechanism of deubiquitination,
suggesting an important dual role for this enzyme.
Our group identified the interaction between two non-structural proteins, nsp7 and
nsp8, and subsequent determination of the et al., 2005). Nsp7 (Fig. 2
d), nsp8 (Fig. 2
e) and the nsp7–nsp8 complex (Fig. 3
b) all have novel structures, and nsp8 exists in two distinct conformations in the
structure. The inner dimensions and electrostatic properties of the cylindrical nsp7–nsp8
structure enable it to encircle nucleic acid, suggesting that the nsp7–nsp8 complex
might be a processivity factor for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (nsp12). A follow-up
study by Imbert and colleagues (Imbert et al., 2006
) reported that nsp8 constitutes a second RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) in addition
to nsp12, which includes an RdRp domain conserved in all RNA viruses. Further activity
assays confirmed that nsp8 recognizes specific short sequences in the ssRNA coronavirus
genome and most likely functions as a primase to catalyze the synthesis of RNA primers
for the primer-dependent nsp12, which is a unique characteristic of coronaviruses.
Interestingly, a recent study has also shown that nsp8 can interact with the orf6
accessory protein (Kumar et al., 2007
), implying that the replication of SARS-CoV involves a rather complicated network
of many proteins.
Crystal structures of nsp9 were reported in 2004 (Egloff et al., 2004; Sutton et al., 2004
) and established its previously unknown function as a single-stranded RNA binding
protein whose biological unit is a dimer. The core structure of the protein is an
open six-stranded β-barrel reminiscent of, yet unrelated to, the nucleic acid binding OB (oligosaccharide/oligonucleotide
binding) fold (Fig. 2
f). Searches for structural homology revealed that nsp9 shares similarity with certain
subdomains of serine including domain II of the SARS-CoV Mpro. Their similarity to the picornavirus 3C which feature a conserved RNA binding motif, indicated that nsp9 should bind also
ssRNA. In addition to its role in the viral replication cycle, possible functions
for nsp9 may be in stabilizing nascent and template RNA strands during replication
and transcription to protect them against nuclease processing, or in base-pairing-driven
processes such as RNA processing.
SARS-CoV nsp10 has been determined both as a dodecamer (Su et al., 2006) and as a monomer (Joseph et al., 2006
). The monomer structure has a novel fold and contains two zinc fingers with the sequence
motifs C–(X)2–C–(X)5–H–(X)6–C and C–(X)2–C–(X)7–C–(X)–C (Fig. 2
g). These zinc finger motifs are strictly conserved among the three coronavirus groups,
implying an essential function for nsp10 in all coronaviruses, and a PFAM search yields
a match with the previously uncharacterized HIT-type zinc finger proteins. While zinc
finger proteins often play a role in transcription, the precise function of nsp10
in the viral life cycle remains to be determined. The location of nsp10 next to the
RNA-interacting proteins nsp8 and nsp9 in the SARS-CoV genome would suggest that nsp10
should also interact with nucleic acid. However, our experiments and those of Joseph
and colleagues found only weak affinity between nsp10 and both ssRNA and dsRNA. Further
work is also needed to ascertain the significance of the oligomeric state of SARS-CoV
nsp10 determined by our group. We used a construct of nsp10 and nsp11 for crystallization,
although nsp11, an 11 amino acid peptide, was not observed in the subsequent structure
(Su et al., 2006
). The exact function of nsp11 in viral replication and transcription remains largely
unknown.
Nsp15, an XendoU ribonuclease, has been determined from SARS-CoV (Ricagno et al., 2006) and mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) (Xu et al., 2006
) in the active hexameric form, and from SARS-CoV as an inactive monomer (Joseph et al., 2007
). Nsp15 is the first member of the XendoU family of endoribonucleases to be characterized,
providing the first structural and mechanistic characteristics for this family of
enzymes. The nsp15 monomer structure has a novel fold and consists of three subdomains:
a small N-terminal domain formed by two α-helices packed against a three-stranded β-sheet; a middle domain comprising a mixed β-sheet, two smaller β-sheets and two short α-helices; and a C-terminal domain made up of two β-sheets and five α-helices (Fig. 2
h). In the shortened monomeric structure of nsp15 reported by Joseph and colleagues,
the catalytic loop flips back to occupy the active site cleft due to the absence of
monomer–monomer interactions. Given the critical importance of nsp15 in the viral
life cycle, it is therefore an attractive target for anti-viral drug design. Potential
strategies for inhibitor design include active site inhibitors, peptidomimetics or
non-peptidyl compounds that mimic the catalytic loop of nsp15, and compounds that
disrupt formation of the hexamer species.
4. Structural proteins
While much of the focus of SARS structural biology work has been on the non-structural
proteins, which include several conserved targets that are attractive for the design
of therapeutics, other studies have been focused on the structural proteins. The
SARS-CoV genome encodes four structural proteins that are required to drive cytoplasmic
viral assembly: the spike (S) protein, the membrane (M) protein, the nucleocapsid
(N) protein and the envelope (E) protein. More recently, two proteins originally labelled
as accessory proteins have been reclassified as structural proteins. Orf3a is believed
to be a minor structural protein with three membrane-spanning helices (Ito et al., 2005; Shen et al., 2005
) and reports suggest it interacts with the spike protein and may influence its trafficking
in the host cell (Tan, 2005
). Orf7a, an integral membrane protein expressed on the membrane surface of host cells
infected with the SARS virion, has also been suggested to be a structural protein
(Huang et al., 2006
). The structure of the soluble luminal domain of orf7a has been determined, although
the function of the full-length protein remains unclear (Nelson et al., 2005
).
Don Wiley and colleagues used their comprehensive study of influenza hemagglutinin
(HA) to propose the classical mechanism of class I fusion proteins for mediating enveloped
virus and host-cell membrane fusion (Skehel & Wiley, 2000; Eckert & Kim, 2001
). A common fusion mechanism has since been established from extensive structural
studies on the viral families of orthomyxovirus, retrovirus, paramyxovirus and filovirus
(Eckert & Kim, 2001
). The SARS-CoV S protein is typical of class I virus fusion proteins in that it can
be divided into an N-terminal half (S1), which binds the host cellular receptor, and
a C-terminal half (S2), responsible for cell entry via virus-cell membrane fusion (Gallagher & Buchmeier, 2001
; Supekar et al., 2004
).
S2 contains two hydrophobic (heptad) repeat regions, HR1 and HR2 (de Groot et al., 1987), which assemble into a six-helix bundle with three HR2 helices surrounding a central
coiled coil of three HR1 helices in an oblique and antiparallel manner. Structures
of the spike (S) protein fusion core have been reported by three groups in the post-fusion
(or fusion-active) state (Fig. 3
c) (Supekar et al., 2004
; Xu, Lou et al., 2004
; Duquerroy et al., 2005
). The N terminus of HR1 and the C terminus of HR2 locate at the same end of the six-helix
bundle, which places the fusion peptide and transmembrane region in close proximity.
Fusogenic mechanisms mediated by SARS-CoV were proposed from these structures according
to those of other class I fusion proteins, although further structural studies are
needed to determine the possible conformational changes of the HR1 and HR2 fusion
during the membrane fusion process.
Fusion ). In the case of SARS-CoV, several derived from HR1 and HR2 regions of SARS-CoV spike proteins block viral entry by
targeting the putative pre-hairpin intermediate (Bosch et al., 2004
; Liu et al., 2004
; Yuan et al., 2004
). derived from HR2 are sufficient to inhibit SARS-CoV infection (Liu et al., 2004
; Bosch et al., 2004
). Interestingly, the efficacy of HR2 derived from the SARS-CoV spike protein is lower than those of corresponding HR2
of MHV in inhibiting MHV infection (Bosch et al., 2004
), which may be explained by the larger surface area buried in the HR1–HR2 interface
of MHV S2 compared with that in SARS-CoV S2 (Xu, Liu et al., 2004
; Xu, Lou et al., 2004
; Supekar et al., 2004
).
An important part of the structure–function studies of any virus is to characterize
the interaction with possible host cellular receptors. In the case of SARS-CoV, the
S1 region of the S protein binds to cellular receptors, including the known receptor
angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) (Li et al., 2003). Stephen Harrison and colleagues determined the structure of the SARS-CoV S protein
receptor-binding domain (RBD, covering residues 318 to 510 of the S protein) with
the known cellular receptor ACE2 (Fig. 3
d) (Li, Li et al., 2005
). The RBD is the critical determinant of virus–receptor interaction and thus of viral
host range and tropism. ACE2 specifically recognizes the SARS-CoV RBD by surface complementarity
via a well defined interface; the opposite face of the RBD which interacts with the rest
of the spike protein is more disordered. As revealed by the authors, the interface
between the two proteins shows important residue changes that facilitate efficient
cross-species infection and human-to-human transmission. ACE2 is highly conserved
in mammals and birds, and its receptor activity for SARS-CoV can be markedly affected
by only a few amino acid substitutions at the virus binding site. Subtle changes in
the RBD residues at positions 479 and 487 in human coronaviruses can increase affinity
for human ACE2. Palm civet coronaviruses have lysine in position 479 and serine in
position 487, for instance, which reduce affinity for human but not palm civet ACE2.
The authors further suggest engineering truncated disulfide-stabilized RBD variants
for use in the design of coronavirus vaccines.
80R is a potent neutralizing human monoclonal antibody against the S1 RBD and binds
with nanomolar affinity (Sui et al., 2004). It is known to block the binding of S1 to the ACE2 receptor, prevent the formation
of syncytia in vitro (Sui et al., 2004
) and inhibit viral replication in vivo (Sui et al., 2005
). A of 80R in complex with the SARS-CoV RBD shows that the 80R binding overlaps with the ACE2 binding site, thus providing a structural basis for the strong
binding and neutralizing ability of the 80R antibody (Fig. 3
e) (Hwang et al., 2006
). The availability of a SARS-CoV RBD structure in complex with 80R should facilitate
the design of immunotherapeutics targeting SARS-CoV.
Crystal structures have been determined for two domains from the SARS-CoV nucleocapsid
protein, which plays an important role by binding to the genomic RNA via a recognizing a stretch of RNA that serves as a packaging signal and leading to the
formation of the helical ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex during assembly. First, the
structure of the RNA binding domain from the SARS-CoV N protein consists of a five-stranded
β-sheet whose fold is unrelated to other RNA binding proteins (Huang et al., 2004; Saikatendu et al., 2007
). The structure of the N protein RNA binding domain might constitute another significant
target, since the discovery of small molecules that bind to the RNA binding domain
should impair the function of the nucleocapsid (Huang et al., 2004
). Since specific packaging of the viral genome into the virion is a critical step
in the life cycle of an infectious virus, this RNA binding domain might be a viable
target for the design of anti-viral therapeutics. Second, the full-length N protein
forms a dimer via its C-terminal domain, and a of this so-called dimerization domain covering residues 270–370 has been reported
(Yu et al., 2006
). The structure was determined as a dimer and features extensive interactions between
the two protomers, consistent with the dimeric nature of the full length protein.
5. Accessory proteins
The SARS coronavirus genome encodes eight so-called accessory proteins with unclear
or unknown function, but which might provide a selective advantage in the infected
host. These accessory proteins are poorly characterized structurally and their functions
are largely unknown, and so it is not clear if the accessory proteins may be viable
targets for anti-viral drug discovery. However, it was recently suggested that the
accessory proteins orf3a and orf7a should be reclassified as structural proteins (Ito
et al., 2005; Shen et al., 2005
; Huang et al., 2006
). As the accessory proteins vary among different coronaviruses, they almost certainly
would not be targets for the design of broad-spectrum anti-virals. Two accessory protein
structures have been determined to date: the orf7a luminal domain (Nelson et al., 2005
) and orf9b, a lipid-binding protein (Meier et al., 2006
).
6. Other targets
In addition to SARS-CoV protein structures, the f) (Robertson et al., 2005
). S2m is a rigorously conserved motif located at the 3′ end of SARS-CoV and the genomes
of other viral pathogens (Jonassen et al., 1998
) but is not found in the human genome. The highly structured s2m RNA element includes
a striking 90° bend in the helix axis. Several longer-range tertiary interactions
create a tunnel perpendicular to the main helical axis, with a negatively charged
interior that binds two Mg ions. These unusual features form likely surfaces for interaction
with conserved host-cell components or other reactive sites required for virus function.
The authors suggest that s2m RNA is a functional macromolecular mimic of the 530 loop
of 16S a fold (Wimberly et al., 2000
), suggesting a mechanism for RNA hijacking of host protein synthesis similar to other
RNA viruses (Bushell & Sarnow, 2002
). The 530 loop of the 30S ribosome binds to the prokaryotic proteins S12 and IF-1,
further suggesting that s2m may interact with their eukaryotic homologs (Robertson
et al., 2005
). Nevertheless, the high sequence conservation of s2m in an otherwise rapidly changing
RNA genome implies its pathogenic importance. The structural features of s2m, coupled
with the fact that it is not found in the human genome, signals that it could be another
attractive target for the design of antiviral therapeutics. Compounds designed to
bind to s2m might disrupt the structure and thus inhibit SARS-CoV pathogenesis.
7. Vaccines against SARS
Vaccines provide another means of therapeutic intervention against SARS-CoV, and drew
particular attention immediately after the SARS outbreak. Several strategies have
been used to develop vaccines, including inactivated viruses, subunit vaccines, virus-like
particles (VLPs), DNA vaccines, heterologous expression systems, and vaccines derived
from SARS-CoV genome by reverse genetics [see Gillim-Ross & Subbarao (2006) for a recent review]. As described above, the S protein RBD could be used as a starting
point for the development of a vaccine, since neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV
recognize epitopes in the RBD. As suggested by the a candidate vaccine could be made by engineering the SARS-CoV RBD to improve stability
(Li, Li et al., 2005
). In another example, the antigenic of the coronavirus N protein are accessible on the surface of infected cells for
T-cell recognition (Boots et al., 1991
; Bergmann et al., 1993
). Furthermore, in 2005, the of the human MHC-I (major histocompatibility complex I) molecule HLA-A*1101 in complex
with a nine amino acid peptide (KTFPPTEPK) derived from the SARS-CoV N-protein, was
determined by X-ray crystallography to 1.45 Å resolution (Blicher et al., 2005
). Although it is similar to other MHC-I molecules and shows a similar peptide binding
mode, the structure adds to the growing library of MHC-I structures and could be used
as a template for peptide-based vaccine design.
Another recent report suggests that the non-structural protein nsp1, encoded at the
5′ end of the replicase gene, is a major pathogenicity factor and could provide the
basis for design of coronavirus vaccines (Zust et al., 2007). Nsp1, whose structure was recently characterized by NMR (Almeida et al., 2007
), is the first mature viral protein expressed in the host cell cytoplasm (Ziebuhr,
2005
) and may be involved with host cell degradation and counteracting innate immune responses (Kamitani et al., 2006
). A deletion in the nsp1 coding sequence in MHV was found to strongly reduce cellular
gene expression, while low doses of nsp1 mutant MHV elicited potent cytotoxic T-cell
responses (Zust et al., 2007
). Furthermore, mice inoculated with the nsp1 mutant MHV were protected against homologous
and heterologous virus challenge. Nsp1 is conserved in all coronaviruses, and so this
strategy for the development of coronavirus vaccines may prove effective for the majority
of mammalian coronaviruses.
8. Future prospects
Structure–function studies of SARS-CoV proteins have significantly advanced our understanding
of coronaviruses and should accelerate structure-based discovery of anti-viral therapeutics.
However, a number of important targets remain to be elucidated, most notably among
the replicase proteins. These include several membrane proteins and large multidomain
proteins and their structures will be challenging to determine. Foremost among these
protein targets is undoubtedly nsp12, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). Canonical
polymerase sequence motifs can be identified in the C-terminal part of the RdRp, while
coronaviral RdRp feature a unique N-terminal region of 380 amino acids with unknown
function (Xu et al., 2003). Despite numerous attempts by several groups, the SARS-CoV RdRp has proven to be
difficult to produce in sufficient quantities for crystallization. The RdRp of other
RNA viruses have been major targets for antiviral compounds. For instance, NS5A is
the RdRp in hepatitis C virus (HCV) and a major target for non-nucleoside inhibitors
(NNI) (Biswal et al., 2005
, 2006
). The binding sites for thiophene-based NNIs are located in the `thumb' domain of
NS5B, in close proximity to the allosteric GTP binding site and approximately 35 Å
from the active site. This part of the `thumb' domain apparently has an important
regulatory function that is modulated by GTP and NNIs. Interestingly, nsp8 is also
believed to form a second RdRp for the synthesis of short RNA primers for nsp12. Since
this function is unique to coronaviruses, the nsp8 primase may be an effective and
specific target for anti-coronavirus therapeutics. Another major target is nsp13,
the helicase, whose role is to unwind double-stranded genomic and subgenomic RNA during
the replication process and whose three-dimensional structure remains to be determined.
Nsp12 and nsp13, together with nsp5 (Mpro), share the highest sequence conservation among the three coronavirus groups and
should be the focus of broad-spectrum anti-viral drug discovery (Yang et al., 2005
).
9. Conclusions
Viral proteins are notoriously difficult to work with, especially with regard to crystallization. Not every SARS-CoV protein may necessarily be a target for therapeutic intervention, but gaining an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of viral replication and host infection will help to identify and prioritize potential SARS-CoV targets. The advent of structural genomics/proteomics has considerably advanced progress in the structure–function studies of SARS-CoV proteins, thus providing a substantial increase in our understanding of coronaviruses.
To date, the structure-based discovery of anti-coronavirus therapeutics has been focused
in two main areas: blocking viral entry into the host cell or inhibiting viral replication
and transcription via the replicase complex. In the former case, the availability of SARS-CoV S protein
fusion core structures will enable the design of inhibitors that block viral entry
by targeting the pre-fusion hairpin intermediate. Structural differences between the
SARS-CoV and MHV S protein fusion cores suggest that inhibitors designed to target
the SARS-CoV S protein fusion core should be less efficient against other coronaviruses.
In the latter case, three highly conserved proteins have been identified thus far
among coronaviruses: nsp5, the Mpro; nsp12, the RdRp; and nsp13, the helicase. Targeting these three proteins should
enable the design of anti-coronavirus therapeutics with broad-spectrum activity. In
the event of a new emerging coronavirus, the availability of broad-spectrum inhibitors
should provide a first line of defence until vaccines become available. However, at
the time of writing, no anti-coronavirus drugs are available, either on the market
or in pre-clinical or clinical trials. SARS-CoV may have been brought under control
through effective surveillance and public health measures, but it should be noted
that two human coronaviruses, HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1, have been isolated in the wake
of SARS (van der Hoek et al., 2004; Woo et al., 2005
) and animal reservoirs for a SARS-like coronavirus have also been identified (Lau
et al., 2005
; Li, Shi et al., 2005
).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Project 973 of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Grant Nos. 2006CB806503, 2007CB914301), the International Cooperation Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology (Grant No. 2006DFB32420), the NSFC (Grant No. 30221003), the Chinese Academy of Sciences Knowledge Innovation Project (Grant No. KSCX1-YW-R-05), the Sino-German Center [Grant No. GZ236(202/9)], and the `Sino-European Project on SARS Diagnostics and Antivirals' (SEPSDA) of the European Commission (Grant No. 003831).
References
Almeida, M. S., Johnson, M. A., Herrmann, T., Geralt, M. & Wuthrich, K. (2007). J. Virol. 81, 3151–3161. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Anand, K., Palm, G. J., Mesters, J. R., Siddell, S. G., Ziebuhr, J. & Hilgenfeld,
R. (2002). EMBO J. 21, 3213–3224. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Anand, K., Ziebuhr, J., Wadhwani, P., Mesters, J. R. & Hilgenfeld, R. (2003). Science, 300, 1763–1767. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Bacha, U., Barrila, J., Velazquez-Campoy, A., Leavitt, S. A. & Freire, E. (2004).
Biochemistry, 43, 4906–4912. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Bartlam, M., Yang, H. & Rao, Z. (2005). Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 15, 664–672. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Bergmann, C., McMillan, M. & Stohlman, S. (1993). J. Virol. 67, 7041–7049. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Biswal, B. K., Cherney, M. M., Wang, M., Chan, L., Yannopoulos, C. G., Bilimoria,
D., Nicolas, O., Bedard, J. & James, M. N. (2005). J. Biol. Chem. 280, 18202–18210. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Biswal, B. K., Wang, M., Cherney, M. M., Chan, L., Yannopoulos, C. G., Bilimoria,
D., Bedard, J. & James, M. N. (2006). J. Mol. Biol. 361, 33–45. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Blicher, T., Kastrup, J. S., Buus, S. & Gajhede, M. (2005). Acta Cryst. D61, 1031–1040. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Boots, A. M., Van Lierop, M. J., Kusters, J. G., Van Kooten, P. J., Van der Zeijst,
B. A. & Hensen, E. J. (1991). Immunology, 72, 10–14. PubMed CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Bosch, B. J., Martina, B. E., Van Der Zee, R., Lepault, J., Haijema, B. J., Versluis,
C., Heck, A. J., De Groot, R., Osterhaus, A. D. & Rottier, P. J. (2004). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 8455–8460. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Bushell, M. & Sarnow, P. (2002). J. Cell Biol. 158, 395–399. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Chen, C. N., Lin, C. P., Huang, K. K., Chen, W. C., Hsieh, H. P., Liang, P. H. & Hsu,
J. T. (2005). Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2, 209–215. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Chen, L., Gui, C., Luo, X., Yang, Q., Gunther, S., Scandella, E., Drosten, C., Bai,
D., He, X., Ludewig, B., Chen, J., Luo, H., Yang, Y., Yang, Y., Zou, J. et al. (2005). J. Virol. 79, 7095–7103. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Chen, L., Li, J., Luo, C., Liu, H., Xu, W., Chen, G., Liew, O. W., Zhu, W., Puah,
C. M., Shen, X. & Jiang, H. (2006). Bioorg. Med. Chem. 14, 8295–8306. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Chen, L. R., Wang, Y. C., Lin, Y. W., Chou, S. Y., Chen, S. F., Liu, L. T., Wu, Y.
T., Kuo, C. J., Chen, T. S. & Juang, S. H. (2005). Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 3058–3062. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Drosten, C., Gunther, S., Preiser, W., van der Werf, S., Brodt, H. R., Becker, S.,
Rabenau, H., Panning, M., Kolesnikova, L., Fouchier, R. A., Berger, A., Burguiere,
A. M., Cinatl, J., Eickmann, M., Escriou, N. et al. (2003). N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1967–1976. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Duquerroy, S., Vigouroux, A., Rottier, P. J., Rey, F. A. & Bosch, B. J. (2005). Virology, 335, 276–285. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Eckert, D. M. & Kim, P. S. (2001). Annu. Rev. Biochem. 70, 777–810. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Egloff, M. P., Ferron, F., Campanacci, V., Longhi, S., Rancurel, C., Dutartre, H.,
Snijder, E. J., Gorbalenya, A. E., Cambillau, C. & Canard, B. (2004). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 3792–3796. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Egloff, M. P., Malet, H., Putics, A., Heinonen, M., Dutartre, H., Frangeul, A., Gruez,
A., Campanacci, V., Cambillau, C., Ziebuhr, J., Ahola, T. & Canard, B. (2006). J. Virol. 80, 8493–8502. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Gallagher, T. M. & Buchmeier, M. J. (2001). Virology, 279, 371–374. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Gillim-Ross, L. & Subbarao, K. (2006). Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 19, 614–636. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Groot, R. J. de, Luytjes, W., Horzinek, M. C., van der Zeijst, B. A., Spaan, W. J.
& Lenstra, J. A. (1987). J. Mol. Biol. 196, 963–966. PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Hamill, P., Hudson, D., Kao, R. Y., Chow, P., Raj, M., Xu, H., Richer, M. J. & Jean,
F. (2006). Biol. Chem. 387, 1063–1074. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Hegyi, A. & Ziebuhr, J. (2002). J. Gen. Virol. 83, 595–599. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Hoek, L. van der, Pyrc, K., Jebbink, M. F., Vermeulen-Oost, W., Berkhout, R. J., Wolthers,
K. C., Wertheim-van Dillen, P. M., Kaandorp, J., Spaargaren, J. & Berkhout, B. (2004).
Nat. Med. 10, 368–373. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Hsu, J. T., Kuo, C. J., Hsieh, H. P., Wang, Y. C., Huang, K. K., Lin, C. P., Huang,
P. F., Chen, X. & Liang, P. H. (2004). FEBS Lett. 574, 116–120. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Huang, C., Ito, N., Tseng, C. T. & Makino, S. (2006). J. Virol. 80, 7287–7294. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Huang, Q., Yu, L., Petros, A. M., Gunasekera, A., Liu, Z., Xu, N., Hajduk, P., Mack,
J., Fesik, S. W. & Olejniczak, E. T. (2004). Biochemistry, 43, 6059–6063. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Hwang, W. C., Lin, Y., Santelli, E., Sui, J., Jaroszewski, L., Stec, B., Farzan, M.,
Marasco, W. A. & Liddington, R. C. (2006). J. Biol. Chem. 281, 34610–34616. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Imbert, I., Guillemot, J. C., Bourhis, J. M., Bussetta, C., Coutard, B., Egloff, M.
P., Ferron, F., Gorbalenya, A. E. & Canard, B. (2006). EMBO J. 25, 4933–4942. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ito, N., Mossel, E. C., Narayanan, K., Popov, V. L., Huang, C., Inoue, T., Peters,
C. J. & Makino, S. (2005). J. Virol. 79, 3182–3186. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Jain, R. P., Pettersson, H. I., Zhang, J., Aull, K. D., Fortin, P. D., Huitema, C.,
Eltis, L. D., Parrish, J. C., James, M. N., Wishart, D. S. & Vederas, J. C. (2004).
J. Med. Chem. 47, 6113–6116. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Jonassen, C. M., Jonassen, T. O. & Grinde, B. (1998). J. Gen. Virol. 79, 715–718. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Joseph, J. S., Saikatendu, K. S., Subramanian, V., Neuman, B. W., Brooun, A., Griffith,
M., Moy, K., Yadav, M. K., Velasquez, J., Buchmeier, M. J., Stevens, R. C. & Kuhn,
P. (2006). J. Virol. 80, 7894–7901. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Joseph, J. S., Saikatendu, K. S., Subramanian, V., Neuman, B. W., Buchmeier, M. J.,
Stevens, R. C. & Kuhn, P. (2007). J. Virol. 81, 6700–6708. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kaeppler, U., Stiefl, N., Schiller, M., Vicik, R., Breuning, A., Schmitz, W., Rupprecht,
D., Schmuck, C., Baumann, K., Ziebuhr, J. & Schirmeister, T. (2005). J. Med. Chem. 48, 6832–6842. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kamitani, W., Narayanan, K., Huang, C., Lokugamage, K., Ikegami, T., Ito, N., Kubo,
H. & Makino, S. (2006). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 12885–12890. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ksiazek, T. G., Erdman, D., Goldsmith, C. S., Zaki, S. R., Peret, T., Emery, S., Tong,
S., Urbani, C., Comer, J. A., Lim, W., Rollin, P. E., Dowell, S. F., Ling, A. E.,
Humphrey, C. D., Shieh, W. J. et al. (2003). N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1953–1966. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kuiken, T., Fouchier, R. A., Schutten, M., Rimmelzwaan, G. F., van Amerongen, G.,
van Riel, D., Laman, J. D., de Jong, T., van Doornum, G., Lim, W., Ling, A. E., Chan,
P. K., Tam, J. S., Zambon, M. C., Gopal, R. et al. (2003). Lancet, 362, 263–270. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kumar, P., Gunalan, V., Liu, B., Chow, V. T., Druce, J., Birch, C., Catton, M., Fielding,
B. C., Tan, Y. J. & Lal, S. K. (2007). Virology. In the press. Google Scholar
Lai, M. M. C. & Holmes, K. V. (2001). Coronaviridae: the Viruses and their Replication. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Google Scholar
Lau, S. K., Woo, P. C., Li, K. S., Huang, Y., Tsoi, H. W., Wong, B. H., Wong, S. S.,
Leung, S. Y., Chan, K. H. & Yuen, K. Y. (2005). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 14040–14045. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Li, F., Li, W., Farzan, M. & Harrison, S. C. (2005). Science, 309, 1864–1868. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Li, W., Moore, M. J., Vasilieva, N., Sui, J., Wong, S. K., Berne, M. A., Somasundaran,
M., Sullivan, J. L., Luzuriaga, K., Greenough, T. C., Choe, H. & Farzan, M. (2003).
Nature (London), 426, 450–454. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Li, W., Shi, Z., Yu, M., Ren, W., Smith, C., Epstein, J. H., Wang, H., Crameri, G.,
Hu, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, J., McEachern, J., Field, H., Daszak, P., Eaton, B. T. et al. (2005). Science, 310, 676–679. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Liu, S., Xiao, G., Chen, Y., He, Y., Niu, J., Escalante, C. R., Xiong, H., Farmar,
J., Debnath, A. K., Tien, P. & Jiang, S. (2004). Lancet, 363, 938–947. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Liu, Y. C., Huang, V., Chao, T. C., Hsiao, C. D., Lin, A., Chang, M. F. & Chow, L.
P. (2005). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 333, 194–199. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Lu, I. L., Mahindroo, N., Liang, P. H., Peng, Y. H., Kuo, C. J., Tsai, K. C., Hsieh,
H. P., Chao, Y. S. & Wu, S. Y. (2006). J. Med. Chem. 49, 5154–5161. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Marra, M. A., Jones, S. J., Astell, C. R., Holt, R. A., Brooks-Wilson, A., Butterfield,
Y. S., Khattra, J., Asano, J. K., Barber, S. A., Chan, S. Y., Cloutier, A., Coughlin,
S. M., Freeman, D., Girn, N., Griffith, O. L. et al. (2003). Science, 300, 1399–1404. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Meier, C., Aricescu, A. R., Assenberg, R., Aplin, R. T., Gilbert, R. J. C., Grimes,
J. M. & Stuart, D. I. (2006). Structure, 14, 1157–1165. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Nelson, C. A., Pekosz, A., Lee, C. A., Diamond, M. S. & Fremont, D. H. (2005). Structure (Camb.), 13, 75–85. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Peiris, J. S., Lai, S. T., Poon, L. L., Guan, Y., Yam, L. Y., Lim, W., Nicholls, J.,
Yee, W. K., Yan, W. W., Cheung, M. T., Cheng, V. C., Chan, K. H., Tsang, D. N., Yung,
R. W., Ng, T. K. et al. (2003). Lancet, 361, 1319–1325. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Prentice, E., McAuliffe, J., Lu, X., Subbarao, K. & Denison, M. R. (2004). J. Virol. 78, 9977–9986. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Putics, A., Filipowicz, W., Hall, J., Gorbalenya, A. E. & Ziebuhr, J. (2005). J. Virol. 79, 12721–12731. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ratta, K., Saikatendu, K. S., Santarsiero, B. D., Barretto, N., Baker, S. C., Stevens,
R. C. & Mesecar, A. D. (2006). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 5717. Web of Science PubMed Google Scholar
Ricagno, S., Egloff, M. P., Ulferts, R., Coutard, B., Nurizzo, D., Campanacci, V.,
Cambillau, C., Ziebuhr, J. & Canard, B. (2006). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 11892–11897. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Robertson, M. P., Igel, H., Baertsch, R., Haussler, D., Ares, M. Jr & Scott, W. G.
(2005). PLoS Biol. 3, e5. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Rota, P. A., Oberste, M. S., Monroe, S. S., Nix, W. A., Campagnoli, R., Icenogle,
J. P., Penaranda, S., Bankamp, B., Maher, K., Chen, M. H., Tong, S., Tamin, A., Lowe,
L., Frace, M., DeRisi, J. L. et al. (2003). Science, 300, 1394–1399. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Saikatendu, K. S., Joseph, J. S., Subramanian, V., Clayton, T., Griffith, M., Moy,
K., Velasquez, J., Neuman, B. W., Buchmeier, M. J., Stevens, R. C. & Kuhn, P. (2005).
Structure, 13, 1665–1675. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Saikatendu, K. S., Joseph, J. S., Subramanian, V., Neuman, B. W., Buchmeier, M. J.,
Stevens, R. C. & Kuhn, P. (2007). J. Virol. 81, 3913–3921. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Shen, S., Lin, P. S., Chao, Y. C., Zhang, A., Yang, X., Lim, S. G., Hong, W. & Tan,
Y. J. (2005). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 330, 286–292. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Shi, J., Wei, Z. & Song, J. (2004). J. Biol. Chem. 279, 24765–24773. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Shie, J. J., Fang, J. M., Kuo, C. J., Kuo, T. H., Liang, P. H., Huang, H. J., Yang,
W. B., Lin, C. H., Chen, J. L., Wu, Y. T. & Wong, C. H. (2005). J. Med. Chem. 48, 4469–4473. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Skehel, J. J. & Wiley, D. C. (2000). Annu. Rev. Biochem. 69, 531–569. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Snijder, E. J., Bredenbeek, P. J., Dobbe, J. C., Thiel, V., Ziebuhr, J., Poon, L.
L., Guan, Y., Rozanov, M., Spaan, W. J. & Gorbalenya, A. E. (2003). J. Mol. Biol. 331, 991–1004. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Spaan, W. J. M. & Cavanagh, D. (2004). Coronaviridae, Virus Taxonomy, VIIIth Report of the ICTV, pp. 945–962. London: Elsevier–Academic Press. Google Scholar
Su, D., Lou, Z., Sun, F., Zhai, Y., Yang, H., Zhang, R., Joachimiak, A., Zhang, X.
C., Bartlam, M. & Rao, Z. (2006). J. Virol. 80, 7902–7908. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Sui, J., Li, W., Murakami, A., Tamin, A., Matthews, L. J., Wong, S. K., Moore, M.
J., Tallarico, A. S., Olurinde, M., Choe, H., Anderson, L. J., Bellini, W. J., Farzan,
M. & Marasco, W. A. (2004). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 2536–2541. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Sui, J., Li, W., Roberts, A., Matthews, L. J., Murakami, A., Vogel, L., Wong, S. K.,
Subbarao, K., Farzan, M. & Marasco, W. A. (2005). J. Virol. 79, 5900–5906. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Supekar, V. M., Bruckmann, C., Ingallinella, P., Bianchi, E., Pessi, A. & Carfi, A.
(2004). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 17958–17963. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Sutton, G., Fry, E., Carter, L., Sainsbury, S., Walter, T., Nettleship, J., Berrow,
N., Owens, R., Gilbert, R., Davidson, A., Siddell, S., Poon, L. L., Diprose, J., Alderton,
D., Walsh, M. et al. (2004). Structure (Camb.), 12, 341–353. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Tan, E. L., Ooi, E. E., Lin, C. Y., Tan, H. C., Ling, A. E., Lim, B. & Stanton, L.
W. (2004). Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 581–586. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Tan, Y. J. (2005). Virol. J. 2, 5. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Tsai, K. C., Chen, S. Y., Liang, P. H., Lu, I. L., Mahindroo, N., Hsieh, H. P., Chao,
Y. S., Liu, L., Liu, D., Lien, W., Lin, T. H. & Wu, S. Y. (2006). J. Med. Chem. 49, 3485–3495. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Wei, P., Fan, K., Chen, H., Ma, L., Huang, C., Tan, L., Xi, D., Li, C., Liu, Y., Cao,
A. & Lai, L. (2006). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 339, 865–872. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Wen, C. C., Kuo, Y. H., Jan, J. T., Liang, P. H., Wang, S. Y., Liu, H. G., Lee, C.
K., Chang, S. T., Kuo, C. J., Lee, S. S., Hou, C. C., Hsiao, P. W., Chien, S. C.,
Shyur, L. F. & Yang, N. S. (2007). J. Med. Chem. 50, 4087–4095. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Wimberly, B. T., Brodersen, D. E., Clemons, W. M. Jr, Morgan-Warren, R. J., Carter,
A. P., Vonrhein, C., Hartsch, T. & Ramakrishnan, V. (2000). Nature (London), 407, 327–339. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Woo, P. C., Lau, S. K., Chu, C. M., Chan, K. H., Tsoi, H. W., Huang, Y., Wong, B.
H., Poon, R. W., Cai, J. J., Luk, W. K., Poon, L. L., Wong, S. S., Guan, Y., Peiris,
J. S. & Yuen, K. Y. (2005). J. Virol. 79, 884–895. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Wu, C. Y., King, K. Y., Kuo, C. J., Fang, J. M., Wu, Y. T., Ho, M. Y., Liao, C. L.,
Shie, J. J., Liang, P. H. & Wong, C. H. (2006). Chem. Biol. 13, 261–268. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Xu, X., Liu, Y., Weiss, S., Arnold, E., Sarafianos, S. G. & Ding, J. (2003). Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 7117–7130. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Xu, X., Zhai, Y., Sun, F., Lou, Z., Su, D., Xu, Y., Zhang, R., Joachimiak, A., Zhang,
X. C., Bartlam, M. & Rao, Z. (2006). J. Virol. 80, 7909–7917. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Liu, Y., Lou, Z., Qin, L., Li, X., Bai, Z., Pang, H., Tien, P., Gao, G. F.
& Rao, Z. (2004). J. Biol. Chem. 279, 30514–30522. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Lou, Z., Liu, Y., Pang, H., Tien, P., Gao, G. F. & Rao, Z. (2004). J. Biol. Chem. 279, 49414–49419. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Yang, H., Bartlam, M. & Rao, Z. (2007). Curr. Pharm. Design, 12, 4573–4590. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Yang, H., Xie, W., Xue, X., Yang, K., Ma, J., Liang, W., Zhao, Q., Zhou, Z., Pei,
D., Ziebuhr, J., Hilgenfeld, R., Yuen, K. Y., Wong, L., Gao, G., Chen, S. et al. (2005). PLoS Biol. 3, e324. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Yang, H., Yang, M., Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Lou, Z., Zhou, Z., Sun, L., Mo, L., Ye, S.,
Pang, H., Gao, G. F., Anand, K., Bartlam, M., Hilgenfeld, R. & Rao, Z. (2003). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 13190–13195. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Yu, I. M., Oldham, M. L., Zhang, J. & Chen, J. (2006). J. Biol. Chem. 281, 17134–17139. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Yuan, K., Yi, L., Chen, J., Qu, X., Qing, T., Rao, X., Jiang, P., Hu, J., Xiong, Z.,
Nie, Y., Shi, X., Wang, W., Ling, C., Yin, X., Fan, K. et al. (2004). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 319, 746–752. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Zhai, Y., Sun, F., Li, X., Pang, H., Xu, X., Bartlam, M. & Rao, Z. (2005). Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 12, 980–986. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Ziebuhr, J. (2004). Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 7, 412–419. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ziebuhr, J. (2005). Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 287, 57–94. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ziebuhr, J., Snijder, E. J. & Gorbalenya, A. E. (2000). J. Gen. Virol. 81, 853–879. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Zust, R., Cervantes-Barragan, L., Kuri, T., Blakqori, G., Weber, F., Ludewig, B. &
Thiel, V. (2007). PLoS Pathog. 3, e109. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.