Author Response: N501Y Mutation of Spike Protein in SARS-CoV-2 Strengthens Its Binding to Receptor ACE2
Fang Tian,Bei Tong,Liang Sun,Shuting Shi,Bin Zheng,Zibin Wang,Xiao Dong,Peng Zheng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.69091.sa2
2021-01-01
Abstract:Article Figures and data Abstract Introduction Results Discussion Materials and methods Data availability References Decision letter Author response Article and author information Metrics Abstract SARS-CoV-2 has been spreading around the world for the past year. Recently, several variants such as B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta), and P.1 (gamma), which share a key mutation N501Y on the receptor-binding domain (RBD), appear to be more infectious to humans. To understand the underlying mechanism, we used a cell surface-binding assay, a kinetics study, a single-molecule technique, and a computational method to investigate the interaction between these RBD (mutations) and ACE2. Remarkably, RBD with the N501Y mutation exhibited a considerably stronger interaction, with a faster association rate and a slower dissociation rate. Atomic force microscopy (AFM)-based single-molecule force microscopy (SMFS) consistently quantified the interaction strength of RBD with the mutation as having increased binding probability and requiring increased unbinding force. Molecular dynamics simulations of RBD–ACE2 complexes indicated that the N501Y mutation introduced additional π-π and π-cation interactions that could explain the changes observed by force microscopy. Taken together, these results suggest that the reinforced RBD–ACE2 interaction that results from the N501Y mutation in the RBD should play an essential role in the higher rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and that future mutations in the RBD of the virus should be under surveillance. Introduction Over the past 20 years, coronaviruses have posed severe threats to public health. In 2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1) emerged in humans after being transferred from an animal reservoir and infected over 8000 people with a fatality rate of ~10% fatality rate (Ksiazek et al., 2003; Florindo et al., 2020). Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) has infected over 1700 people with a fatality rate of ~36% since 2012 (Zaki et al., 2012). In late December 2019, a novel coronavirus, called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified as the cause of an outbreak of a new respiratory illness named COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 has caused more than 4 million deaths to date. Considerable efforts have been made to understand its molecule mechanism. Coronaviruses are large, enveloped, positive-stranded RNA viruses belonging to the coronaviridae family, which comprises four genera: alpha-coronaviruses, beta-coronaviruses, gamma-coronaviruses, and delta-coronaviruses (Zumla et al., 2016). SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, and MERS-CoV, which infect mammalians (Wu et al., 2020), are beta-coronaviruses. Envelope-anchored spike proteins are capable of mediating coronavirus entry into host cells by first binding to a specific host receptor and then fusing the viral and host membranes (Wu et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2017). The coronavirus spike protein, a class I fusion protein, is synthesized as a precursor single polypeptide chain consisting of three segments: a large ectodomain, a single-pass transmembrane anchor, and a short intracellular tail (Figure 1A). After interacting with the host receptor, the spike protein is cleaved into an amino-terminal subunit (S1) and a carboxyl-terminal subunit (S2) by host furin-like proteases (Yuan et al., 2017; Li, 2016; Lan et al., 2020). The receptor-binding domain (RBD) located in the C-terminal region of the S1 subunit (S1 CTD) is responsible for recognizing and binding the host receptor and is critical in determining the cell tropism, host range, and zoonotic transmission of coronaviruses (Wu et al., 2020; Li, 2016). The S2 subunit contains a hydrophobic fusion loop for membrane fusion. Cryo-EM studies have illuminated the prefusion and postfusion structures of the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, implying that coronaviruses undergo conformational changes during infection. The spike protein forms a clove-shaped homotrimer with three S1 heads and a trimeric S2 stalk. Structural comparisons indicated that spike protein utilizes the CTD1 (N-terminal domain in CTD) as the RBD, which changes from the ‘down’ conformation to the ‘up’ conformation and then converts from the inactivated state to the activated state to allow for receptor binding, and possibly also to initiate subsequent conformational changes of the S2 subunits to mediate membrane fusion (Yuan et al., 2017; Li, 2016; Lan et al., 2020; Kirchdoerfer et al., 2018). The binding of spike RBD to SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2 is the first step in viral entry into the host cell. Thus, the majority of vaccines and neutralizing antibodies that are under development target this region. Figure 1 Download asset Open asset Two SARS-CoV-2 variants bind to ACE2 with higher affinity. (A) Domain architecture of the SARS-CoV-2 spike monomer. NTD, N-terminal domain; RBD, receptor-binding domain; SD1, subdomain 1; SD2, subdomain 2; FP, fusion peptide; HR1, heptad repeat 1; CH, central helix; CD, connector domain; HR2, heptad repeat 2; TM, transmembrane region; CT, C-terminal. (B) Sequence alignment of RBD from SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, and B.1.351 variant spike proteins. The N501Y, K417N, and E484K mutations are highlighted in red with a *. Cysteines forming disulfide bonds are marked in orange. (C–E) The interface of ACE2 (cyan) in complex with spike RBD from SARS-CoV-2 (violet), B.1.1.7 lineage (yellow), and B.1.351 lineage (green). Residues 501, 500, 417, 487, and 484 from the RBD and the mutant RBD, and the contacting residues from ACE2 (Y41, K353, D355, D30, and Y83) are shown in sticks. Hydrogen bonds are shown in dash lines. (F) Representative images of ACE2–mCherry (red) HEK293 cells stained with 100 nM AlexaFluor488-labeled RBD (green). (G) Saturated binding of AlexaFluor488-labeled RBD to cell-surface ACE2. NS, non-specific. (H) Series-diluted RBD and RBD mutants were incubated with ACE2-expressing cells in the presence of AlexaFluor488-labeled RBD protein (100 nM). Concentrations used for unlabeled RBD and RBD mutants were from 5 μM to 0.25 nM with threefold dilution. Kd values were calculated using the Cheng–Prusoff equation. Figure 1—source data 1 Source cell-surface-binding data used for Figure 1G,H. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig1-data1-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig1-data1-v3.xlsx Recently, several variants with increased transmissibility have been found. The alpha variant (B.1.1.7 lineage) was first detected in the United Kingdom in September 2020, and another variant (B.1.351 lineage, beta) was first detected in October 2020 in the Republic of South Africa (Rahimi and Talebi Bezmin Abadi, 2021; Greaney et al., 2021; CNBC, 2021). Both of these mutants carry an N501Y mutation, and the B.1.351 lineage has two additional mutations (K417N and E484K) within the RBD region (Figure 1B,C; Leung et al., 2021; Tu et al., 2021). Recent data suggest that the FDA-authorized mRNA vaccines continued to induce a high level of neutralization against the B.1.1.7 variant, but a lower level against B.1.351 variants. Several researchers have assessed the neutralization potency of numerous antibodies against the two new variants. Their data suggest that some neutralizing antibodies in phase II/III clinical trials were not able to retain their neutralizing capability against the B.1.351 variant. As these mutations are within the RBD region, an understanding of the mechanism that allows the new variants to bind to the ACE2 receptor is of great value. The structure of the RBD–ACE2 complex showed that extensive interactions are formed between RBD and ACE2 (Lu et al., 2020; Bauer et al., 2020). To understand the potential role of the RBD mutations in binding to ACE2, we combined a cell-surface-binding assay, a kinetics study, a single-molecule biophysical method, and steered molecular dynamics (SMD) simulations to study the interaction of RBD mutants and ACE2 (Figure 1D,E). Our results reveal the molecular mechanism that underlies the increased transmissibility of two SARS-CoV-2 variants by identifying the key mutation N501Y. This information could be valuable for the development of further vaccines and neutralizing antibodies against mutant forms of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Results Cell-surface binding of RBD to ACE2 To elucidate the interaction between the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 variants and ACE2, we performed a cell-surface-binding assay. ACE2 with a mCherry fused at the C-terminus was transfected into HEK293 cells. Confocal microscopic images subsequently showed that ACE2 was located mainly in the cell membrane and endoplasmic reticulum (Figure 1F). ACE2–mCherry-positive cells were stained with AlexaFluor488 labeled-RBD, and the overlay images showed the co-localization of RBD and ACE2 on the cell surface (Figure 1F), validating their interaction. To measure the binding affinity of RBD from SARS-CoV-2 for ACE2 on the surface of cells, saturation binding was performed using fluorescence flow cytometry by titration of Alexa488-RBD without washing the cells, which yielded a Kd of about 50 nM (Figure 1G). We also performed a competition-binding assay by titrating unlabeled RBD to compete with 100 nM Alexa488-RBD, which showed a similar affinity of 50 nM (Figure 1H). N501Y mutation slowed the dissociation of the RBD from the ACE2 receptor To determine the role of the receptor mutations, we first compared the ability of all of the RBD mutants to bind to the cell surface with that of wild-type RBD using a competition binding assay (Figure 1H). The N501Y mutation from the B.1.1.7 variant showed a fourfold greater affinity than wild-type RBD for the cell surface. The mutation resulted in a slightly weaker or similar affinity to cell-surface ACE2, whereas the N501Y, K417N, E484K triple mutation resulted in an affinity similar to that of the wild type RBD. These results demonstrated that N501Y is the key residue change that increases binding affinity. To further understand the changes in kinetics that result from the RBD mutations, we performed surface plasmon resonance (SPR) on the immobilized RBD or RBD mutants with ACE2 as an analyte (Figure 2A–C, thin black lines). Compared to RBD, both RBDN501Y and RBDTriple showed a 10-fold increase in affinity, which resulted from a significantly lower off-rate and a slightly higher on-rate (Figure 2). Two other amino acid mutations (K417N and E484K) had less impact on ACE2 binding, as verified by two single-point mutants (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). This result again emphasized the role of N501Y, rather than the other two mutations, in increasing binding affinity by slowing the rate of dissociation from the ACE2 receptor. Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all Download asset Open asset Kinetics of the binding of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and of RBD mutants to the ACE2 protein. (A–C) Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) sensorgrams (thin black lines) with fits (thick gray lines). ACE2 protein concentrations of 50, 20, 10, 5, 2, and 1 nM were used. Values were fitted to the 1:1 binding model. (D) Kd and kinetic rates are shown as fit ± fitting error. Figure 2—source data 1 Source data describing the kinetics of each receptor-binding domain (RBD) bound to ACE2 protein used for Figure 2 and Figure 2—figure supplement 1. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig2-data1-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig2-data1-v3.xlsx AFM showed a higher binding probability and binding strength for the two variants containing N501Y In addition to classic ensemble measurements, we used atomic force microscopy (AFM)-based single-molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) to measure the strength of binding between the three different RBDs and ACE2 on a living cell directly (Alsteens et al., 2017a; Hinterdorfer and Dufrêne, 2006). AFM-SMFS is a powerful single-molecule nanotechnology that can be used like optical and magnetic tweezers to manipulate a single molecule or several molecules mechanically (Jobst et al., 2015; Walder et al., 2017; Alonso-Caballero et al., 2021; Löf et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Xing et al., 2020). It has been widely used to study protein mechanics and protein–protein interactions, including the interaction between the spike proteins of viruses and living cells (Kim et al., 2010; Cuellar-Camacho et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020; Sieben et al., 2012; Alsteens et al., 2017b; Yu et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2017). A previous AFM experiment identified the binding events between the wild-type RBD and human ACE2 transfected on A549 cells, obtaining their binding probability and unbinding force/kinetics (Yang et al., 2020). In our work, a single RBD is site-specifically immobilized to a peptide-coated AFM tip via an enzymatic ligation (Figure 3A, step 1) (Deng et al., 2019; Ott et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2019; Popa et al., 2016). An N-terminal GL sequence is present in the peptide, and a C-terminal NGL is added to the three RBDs. These two sequences can be recognized and ligated by protein ligase OaAEP1 into a peptide bond linkage, and the RBD is attached to the tip for AFM measurement (Deng et al., 2019). Then, we used the ACE2–mCherry-transfected HEK293 cells as the target cell, which is immobilized on a Petri dish coated with poly-D-lysine. With the help of fluorescence, we targeted the transfected cell for measurement (Figure 3B). Figure 3 with 4 supplements see all Download asset Open asset Atomic force microscopy-based single-molecule force spectroscopy (AFM-SMFS) experiment to quantify the strength of binding between the receptor-binding domains (RBDs) and ACE2 in living cells. (A) Schematic of the AFM-SMFS measurement process showing how the interaction is quantified. RBD with an N-terminal NGL recognition sequence is immobilized on a GL-coated AFM tip by the ligase OaAEP1, which recognizes the two sequences and ligates them to form a peptide bond (1). As the AFM tip approaches the target cell (2), RBD binds to ACE2 (3). Then the tip retracts, and the complex dissociates, leading to an unbinding force peak (4). (B) The reddish ACE2–mCherry-transfected HEK293 cell is measured under the AFM tip by an inverted fluorescent microscope. (C) Representative force-extension curves show no binding event (curve 1) and specific binding events between RBD–ACE2 complexes with an unbinding force peak (curves 2–4). In the force histograms (inset), RBDN501Y and RBDTriple show higher unbinding forces (57 pN and 56 pN) than the RBD (49 pN). (D) Box plot of the specific binding probabilities between the three RBDs and target cells from AFM experiments, indicating a higher binding probability for the two mutants under five different velocities. The box indicates the 25th and 75th percentiles. (E) 3D AFM force mapping of the cell surface showed the unbinding force distribution. (F) A plot of loading rate against the most probable unbinding forces from the complexes showed a linear relationship. The data are fitted to the Bell–Evans model to extract the off-rate. Figure 3—source data 1 Source data for the histograms of unbinding force for different RBD–ACE2 complexes used in Figure 3C and Figure 3—figure supplement 3. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig3-data1-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig3-data1-v3.xlsx Figure 3—source data 2 Binding probabilities for different RBD–ACE2 complexes used for Figure 3D. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig3-data2-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig3-data2-v3.xlsx Figure 3—source data 3 Force mapping results for the different complexes used for Figure 3E and Figure 3—figure supplement 4. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig3-data3-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig3-data3-v3.xlsx Figure 3—source data 4 Loading rates for different RBD–ACE2 complexes used for Figure 3F. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig3-data4-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig3-data4-v3.xlsx Figure 3—source data 5 The spring constant (k) for all 15 cantilevers. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig3-data5-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig3-data5-v3.xlsx Upon moving the AFM tip towards the cell, the RBD contacts the cell and binds to the ACE2 on the surface (steps 2 and 3). Then, the tip retracts at a constant velocity and pulls the complex apart by breaking all the interactions, leading to a force-extension curve with a force peak corresponding to the unbinding of the RBD–ACE2 complex (steps 3 and 4, Figure 3A; Rief et al., 1997). If the RBD does not bind to the ACE2 receptor, a featureless curve will be observed (Figure 3C, curve 1). Finally, the tip moves to another spot (65 nm away) on the cell and repeats the cycle for tens of hundreds of times, leading to a force map of the unbinding force distribution of RBD over the cell surface (Figure 3E; Hinterdorfer et al., 1996; Müller et al., 2009). Because previous ensemble measurements showed that the N501Y mutation contributes most to the higher binding affinity of the RBD, we mainly focus on RBDN501Y, RBDTriple, and wild-type RBD for AFM-SMFS studies and comparisons. For example, 2815 data points on force-extension curves (using a pulling speed of 5 µm/s) have been obtained by probing ACE2-transfected cells with a RBDN501Y-functionalized AFM tip. As indicated by an unbinding force of >20 pN, 14% of the events involved a specific interaction between RBDN501Y and ACE2 (Figure 3D curve 4, Figure 3—figure supplement 1). The same experiments and analysis were performed for RBD (3.3%) and RBDTriple (11.2%). The interaction between RBD and untransfected normal HEK293 cells (1.7%) was also measured as a control (Figure 3—figure supplement 2a). The mean unbinding forces for RBD, RBDN501Y, and RBDTriple were 49 ± 11 pN (n = 349), 57 ± 18 pN (n = 394), and 56 ± 12 pN (n = 312), respectively (Figure 3C). Both RBD mutants showed a higher binding probability and unbinding force than the wild type, while the properties of the two variants are similar to each other (Figure 3C,D, Figure 3—figure supplement 2B-D). The absolute difference in force value between the two mutations and the wild type is small (~10 pN), but this is still a difference of ~15% difference due to their low unbinding force (~50 pN). Finally, we also performed AFM measurements on RBDK417N (40 ± 11 pN, n = 894) and RBDE484K (41 ± 11 pN, n = 606) (Figure 3—figure supplement 3). These mutant RBDs showed weaker unbinding forces than wild type RBD, in agreement with previous ensemble measurements and verifying our single-molecule results. Moreover, AFM-SMFS can also be used to obtain the unbinding kinetics, which further support our previous conclusions. According to the Bell–Evans model, the force that is externally applied by AFM lowers the unbinding activation energy (Merkel et al., 1999; Yu et al., 2017; Zheng and Li, 2011; Garcia-Manyes and Beedle, 2017). Thus, the binding strength of the ligand–receptor bond (i.e. interaction) is proportional to the logarithm of the loading rate, which describes the effect of the force applied on the bond over time. Thus, we pulled the RBD–ACE2 complexes apart at different velocities, and plotted the relationship between the unbinding forces and loading rate (Figure 3F, Figure 3—figure supplement 4). From the fit (SI), we can estimate the bond dissociation rate (koff) and the length scale of the energy barrier (Δxβ) (Hickman et al., 2017). Similarly, the koff of the two RBD mutants are close to each other (0.030 ± 0.017 s−1 and 0.035 ± 0.024 s−1) but slower than that of the wild-type RBD (0.075 ± 0.048 s−1). SMD simulations revealed a higher unbinding force for the complexes due to additional π-π and cation-π interactions resulting from the N501Y mutation To explore the possible molecular mechanism of RBD–ACE2 complex dissociation under force, we performed SMD simulations to visualize the unbinding process that took place during the AFM study (Figure 4 and Figure 4—video 1, Figure 4—video 2, Figure 4—video 3; Dong et al., 2017; Milles et al., 2018; Tian et al., 2020; Mei et al., 2020). In the wild-type RBD–ACE2 interaction, T500 forms two hydrogen bonds with Y41 and D355 from ACE2; K417 from RBD forms a salt bridge with D30 from ACE2; and N487 forms one hydrogen bond with Y83 (Figure 4A, snapshot 1). The broken forms of these interactions, except the interaction between N487 and Y83, showed the highest rupture force during the simulations and are regarded as the most critical step for the dissociation of the complex . This force was defined as the rupture or disassociation force for the complex and was simulated as 427 ± 58 pN (n = 20, Figure 4A, Figure 4—figure supplement 1A). Then, the interaction between N487 and Y83 was broken, leading to the complete dissociation of the complex (Figure 4A, snapshot 2). Figure 4 with 4 supplements see all Download asset Open asset SMD simulations of RBD–ACE2 complex dissociation. (A–C) Force-extension traces of RBD–ACE2 (violet), RBDN501Y–ACE2 (orange), and RBDTriple–ACE2 (green) complexes pulled apart at 5 Å/ns. The curves represent the average results from 20 simulations, with the standard deviations represented by vertical lines. In the ribbon diagrams, ACE2 is colored in cyan. Snapshots 1 and 2 represent the changes that occur as the RBDs are dissociated from ACE2 sequentially. The residues that are involved in the interaction between RBDs and ACE2 are labeled and depicted in sphere models, and the residue is colored in red if the interaction in which it participates is ruptured in the snapshot. (D, E) The distances between the Y41 (left) and K353 (right) residues of the ACE2 receptor and the Y(N)501 and residue of RBD (colored in purple), RBDN501Y (orange) or RBDTriple (green) as the extension elongates. Figure 4—source data 1 Rupture forces for the three complexes from 20 SMD simulations. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig4-data1-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig4-data1-v3.xlsx Figure 4—source data 2 Distances between key residues in the RBDs–ACE2 complexes used for Figure 4D,E. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69091/elife-69091-fig4-data2-v3.xlsx Download elife-69091-fig4-data2-v3.xlsx In the RBDN501Y–ACE2 complex, Y501 forms an additional π-π interaction with Y41 and an additional π-cation interaction with K353 (Figure 4B, snapshot 1). The rupture of these additional interactions as well as the interactions that are also present in the wild-type complex (snapshot 1) led to the highest rupture force during the simulation. An elevated unbinding force of 499 ± 67 pN (n = 20) was obtained for the complex between RBDN501Y and ACE2 compared to that for the complex between wild-type RBD and ACE2 (p=8.29 e–4, Figure 4B, Figure 4—figure supplement 1B). Similarly, SMD simulations revealed that RBDTriple might also have a stronger contact than wild-type RBD with ACE2. The unbinding force was 521 ± 65 pN (p=2.33 e–5, Figure 4C, Figure 4—figure supplement 1C). In addition to the complex dissociation force, we also measured the distance between these key residues (Y(N)501–Y41 and Y(N)501–K353) during the simulations (see Materials and methods for details). For the wild-type RBD–ACE2 complex, the distances between residue N501 and residues Y41 (Figure 4D) and K353 (Figure 4E) increased significantly at a shorter extension along the pulling pathway (purple line) at the distance of 2.2 ± 0.7 nm (n = 20), indicating no interaction between these residues in the RBD–ACE2 complex. For the two variants (Figure 4D,E), the distances showed a smaller increase at an extension of 2.9 ± 0.8 nm (p=5.38 e–3, orange line, n = 20) and 3.3 ± 0.8 nm (p=6.39 e–5, green line, n = 20), respectively. Consequently, the SMD simulations further demonstrate that the RBDN501Y–ACE2 and RBDTriple–ACE2 complexes have a higher unbinding force than wild-type RBD–ACE2 complexes, and that the additional π-π and cation-π interactions that result from the N501Y mutation may provide the molecular mechanism that underlies this result. Discussion Coronaviruses are large, enveloped, positive-stranded RNA viruses that have a remarkable mutation rate that allows them to evolve in a way that affects their transmission. In this study, we combined cell-surface-binding assays, mechanical manipulation by AFM-SMFS, and molecular dynamics simulations to understand the behavior of key mutations recently detected in B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants that affect RBD binding. All of these methodologies suggested that, of the three mutations examined in this work, the N501Y mutation in the RBD has the most significant role in binding and dissociation from the ACE2 receptor . The cell surface-binding assay showed that, when compared wild-type RBD, RBDN501Y had greater binding affinity for ACE2. SPR and AFM-SMFS measurements consistently showed that RBDN501Y had increased kon and binding probability and decreased koff. It is noted that SPR was performed on the complex between RBD and isolated ACE2 protein, whereas the other two measurements were performed on the complex between RBD and ACE2 on living cells. The more complex cell surface of living cells, where other proteins or receptors may interact with RBD in a non-specific and weaker way, may account for the relatively weak results observed at the cellular level. Indeed, the AFM unbinding results indicated a fraction of non-specific interactions between RBDs and the surface of untransfected normal cells (~5% for a RBD monomer on HEK293 cells studied here, ~10% for a S1/RBD homotrimer on A549 cells) (Alsteens et al., 2017a). Previous AFM results on wild-type RBD showed a higher specific binding probability than that observed in this study (~20% vs. ~15%), possibly resulting from different RBD construct and immobilization methods and the use of different host (A549) cells (Yang et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2019; Cao et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the specific unbinding forces detected for the RBD–ACE2 complex (~50 pN) in the two experiments are similar. Moreover, the two mutants showed higher binding probability and unbinding force, as well as lower off-rate, under the same conditions in our studies. One concern was whether ACE2 was pulled out of the cell membrane during our AFM experiments. First, the unbinding force that was measured (~50 pN) is much smaller than the typical force needed to pull a membrane-bound protein out of a cell membrane (~100 pN). Also, if this had happened, the isolated ACE2 would stick to the RBD-functionalized coverslip and would block further measurement. In our AFM experiment, the pick-up ratio was mostly consistent with the measurements. Finally, previous work on purified ACE2 protein and wild-type RBD showed a rupture force of ~50 pN (Yang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020). Thus, we believe that the ACE2 was not pulled out of the cell membrane during our experiments. There was only a small difference in complex stability between RBDN501Y and RBDTriple, where two more mutations are present in RBDTriple. Indeed, the results from flow cytometry showed that E484K contributed less to the interaction increment than N501Y, whereas K417N even decreased the interaction. The effects of the E484K and K417N mutations may cancel each other out, and N501Y is the dominant site in affecting the interaction. Thus, the combination of all three of these mutations in RBDTriple lead to an effect that was similar to that of RBDN501Y. Indeed, a similar koff value is obtained for RBDN501Y and RBDTriple from AFM-SMFS measurement. Finally, the SMD simulations provide valuable information on the enhanced interaction between the RBD mutants and ACE2. It is noted that only a modest effect from the N501Y mutation was detected in the experimental data, such as the 10 pN difference in complex dissociation force between the wild-type and variants detected by AFM measurement. Consequently, we performed a range of different experimental biophysical methods to measure the kinetics and confirm these differences. Thus, the results of SMD simulations are essential parts of our work, revealing that additional interactions are present for the N501Y mutant RBD and are responsible for the increased rupture force. Owing to computational limitations, we chose 0.5 m/s as the pulling speed for the SMD simulations, which is a normal speed for simulations. Nevertheless, this speed is much higher than the experimental speed (5 µm/s), although it does not affect the molecular insights provided by the simulations. As confirmed by other simulation studies performed at various speeds (Kim et al., 2021; Pavlova et al., 2021; Han et al., 2021), our simulations revealed that additional π-π and cation-π interactions resulting from the N501Y mutation lead to the higher rupture force. In addition, a higher pulling speed typically leads to a higher rupture or dissociation force. Thus, the simulation also confirmed rupture force trend for the three complexes. Nevertheless, all of these methods have their own advantages and limitations. The experiment provides quantitative results under physiological conditions, whereas the simulations provide an underlying molecular mechanism that rarely obtained by experimentation (Kim et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2019). Thus, we believe that the combination of experimental and simulation techniques used here is necessary and provides a complete picture of this important problem. Another SARS-CoV-2 variant, P.1 lineage (gamma), was identified in January 2021 in Brazil. Studies found that, like the two variants studied in this work, it may also affect the ability of antibodies to recognize and neutralize the virus (Hodcroft et al., 2021). Interestingly, three key mutations (N501Y, E484K, a