Computational Design of Viral Capsid-Like Nanoparticles for Antigen Display
Introduction
The development of subunit vaccines for veterinary applications has been constrained by the limited immunogenicity of soluble recombinant antigens. Antigens presented in a repetitive, ordered array on a nanoparticle scaffold elicit substantially stronger B cell responses than their monomeric counterparts [1]. Viral capsid-like nanoparticles (CLNs) are self-assembling protein cages derived from viral structural proteins that retain the ability to form icosahedral or octahedral shells but lack genetic material [2]. These particles provide a platform for the multivalent display of heterologous antigens on their exterior surface, mimicking the repetitive geometry of native virions [3]. Computational design methods have become essential for engineering CLNs with defined symmetry, controlled valency, and enhanced thermostability [4].
This article reviews the biophysical principles governing CLN self-assembly, the computational algorithms used to design antigen display interfaces, and the stability engineering strategies that enable these particles to function as vaccine platforms in veterinary species.
Biophysical Principles of Capsid Self-Assembly
Viral capsids are protein shells that enclose the viral genome. The capsid is composed of multiple copies of one or more capsid proteins (CPs) that assemble into a closed shell with icosahedral symmetry [5]. Icosahedral symmetry is the most common architecture among spherical viruses and is characterized by 60 identical asymmetric units arranged with 5-fold, 3-fold, and 2-fold rotational symmetry axes [6]. The triangulation number (T-number) describes the number of CP copies per asymmetric unit; a T=1 capsid contains 60 CP copies, while a T=3 capsid contains 180 copies [7].
The self-assembly of CPs into a capsid is driven by non-covalent interactions including hydrophobic contacts, hydrogen bonds, and electrostatic interactions at subunit interfaces [8]. The free energy of assembly must be sufficiently negative to overcome the entropic penalty of ordering many subunits into a closed shell [9]. Computational models of capsid assembly have been developed using coarse-grained molecular dynamics and Brownian dynamics simulations to predict assembly pathways and identify critical nucleation sites [10].
For CLN design, the CP must be modified to incorporate heterologous antigen sequences while preserving the ability to assemble into a cage of defined symmetry [11]. The insertion site must be solvent-exposed, structurally permissive, and located at a position that does not disrupt inter-subunit contacts [12]. Computational screening of insertion sites is performed using structural alignment of the target CP with homologous proteins of known structure [13].
Computational Design of Antigen Display Interfaces
The design of a CLN for antigen display requires the selection of an appropriate CP scaffold, the identification of permissible insertion sites, and the optimization of the antigen-CP linker geometry [14]. Several viral CPs have been used as scaffolds for CLN design, including the CP of bacteriophage MS2, the CP of cowpea chlorotic mottle virus (CCMV), and the CP of hepatitis B virus (HBV) core protein [15]. For veterinary applications, CPs derived from animal viruses such as the CP of canine parvovirus (CPV) or the CP of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) have been explored [16].
The computational workflow for CLN design typically proceeds through the following stages:
Scaffold selection: The CP is chosen based on its known atomic structure, its ability to assemble into a monodisperse population of particles, and its tolerance to genetic fusion at specific surface loops [17].
Insertion site identification: Surface-exposed loops are identified using solvent accessibility calculations performed on the CP crystal structure or cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) reconstruction [18]. Loops with high B-factors and low sequence conservation are preferred as they are more likely to tolerate insertion [19].
Linker design: The antigen is connected to the CP via a flexible linker peptide, typically composed of glycine and serine residues [20]. The linker length is optimized using molecular dynamics simulations to ensure that the antigen does not sterically clash with neighboring subunits [21].
Symmetry modeling: The designed CP-antigen fusion is docked into the icosahedral asymmetric unit using symmetry constraints derived from the parent capsid [22]. The resulting model is evaluated for steric clashes and inter-subunit contacts using energy minimization [23].
Stability prediction: The thermodynamic stability of the designed CLN is predicted using computational tools such as FoldX or Rosetta [24]. Mutations that destabilize the CP core or disrupt inter-subunit interfaces are rejected [25].
flowchart TD
A[Select CP scaffold], > B[Identify surface loops]
B, > C[Calculate solvent accessibility]
C, > D[Select insertion site]
D, > E[Design linker sequence]
E, > F[Dock antigen into CP structure]
F, > G[Apply icosahedral symmetry]
G, > H[Evaluate steric clashes]
H, > I[Energy minimization]
I, > J[Predict stability with FoldX/Rosetta]
J, > K{Stable?}
K, >|Yes| L[Express and purify CLN]
K, >|No| D
L, > M[Characterize by SEC and cryo-EM]
M, > N[Assess antigenicity by ELISA]
Symmetry Constraints and Valency Control
The valency of antigen display on a CLN is determined by the T-number of the capsid and the number of insertion sites per CP [26]. For a T=1 capsid with 60 CP copies, a single insertion site per CP yields a valency of 60 [27]. For a T=3 capsid with 180 CP copies, the valency can be 180 if all CPs are modified, or lower if only a subset of CPs carry the antigen [28].
The spatial arrangement of antigens on the CLN surface is constrained by the symmetry of the capsid [29]. Antigens displayed at 5-fold symmetry axes are clustered in pentameric rings, while those at 3-fold axes form trimeric clusters [30]. The distance between adjacent antigens affects the avidity of B cell receptor cross-linking and the magnitude of the antibody response [31]. Computational modeling of antigen spacing is performed using rigid-body docking and distance geometry calculations [32].
For some applications, it is desirable to display multiple different antigens on the same CLN to induce a broad immune response [33]. This can be achieved by co-expressing two or more CP-antigen fusions that co-assemble into mosaic particles [34]. The stoichiometry of each antigen in the mosaic particle can be controlled by adjusting the ratio of expression plasmids or by using split-protein complementation systems [35].
Stability Engineering of Capsid-Like Nanoparticles
The stability of CLNs is critical for their use as vaccine platforms, as particles must remain intact during purification, formulation, and storage [36]. Thermal stability is assessed by differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) or by measuring the melting temperature (Tm) using circular dichroism spectroscopy [37]. Computational stability engineering aims to increase the Tm of CLNs by introducing mutations that strengthen inter-subunit contacts or improve the packing of hydrophobic cores [38].
Rosetta-based design protocols have been used to predict stabilizing mutations in viral CPs [39]. The protocol involves calculating the change in folding free energy (Delta Delta G) upon mutation and selecting mutations that are predicted to be stabilizing [40]. Disulfide bond engineering is another strategy for increasing CLN stability; computational tools such as Disulfide by Design are used to identify residue pairs with suitable geometry for disulfide formation [41].
The pH stability of CLNs is also important, particularly for oral or intranasal vaccine delivery where particles encounter acidic environments [42]. Computational pKa calculations are used to identify ionizable residues that may become protonated at low pH and cause capsid disassembly [43]. Mutating these residues to neutral amino acids can improve acid stability [44].
Computational Tools for CLN Design
Several computational tools and webservers are available for CLN design. The Rosetta macromolecular modeling suite includes protocols for symmetric protein docking, interface design, and stability prediction [45]. The VIPERdb database provides structural information on icosahedral virus capsids, including symmetry axes and residue-level contact maps [46]. The Capsid Designer tool, developed for the design of chimeric virus-like particles, allows users to select insertion sites and model antigen-CP fusions [47].
Molecular dynamics simulations using GROMACS or NAMD are used to assess the conformational dynamics of designed CLNs [48]. Simulations are typically run for 100-500 ns to evaluate the stability of the antigen-CP linker and the overall particle integrity [49]. Coarse-grained simulations using the Martini force field are used to study assembly pathways and to predict the effect of mutations on assembly efficiency [50].
Veterinary Applications and Case Studies
CLNs have been evaluated as vaccine platforms for several veterinary pathogens. For avian influenza virus, the hemagglutinin (HA) globular head domain has been displayed on the surface of CLNs derived from the CP of bacteriophage AP205 [51]. Vaccination of chickens with these CLNs induced hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies and protected against challenge with highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 [52]. This approach is relevant to the control of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1) in Poultry and Wild Birds: Clinical Signs, Transmission Dynamics, and Surveillance Maps.
For porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), the GP5 ectodomain has been displayed on CLNs derived from the CP of the MS2 bacteriophage [53]. Vaccination of pigs with these CLNs reduced viremia and lung pathology following challenge [54]. This work is discussed in the article Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome: Genomic Surveillance and Vaccine Strategies Using Bioinformatics.
For canine parvovirus, the VP2 protein has been used as a scaffold for the display of heterologous epitopes from other canine pathogens [55]. The VP2 protein naturally assembles into T=1 capsids, and insertion sites at the VP2 surface loops have been identified using computational modeling [56].
Challenges and Future Directions
Despite the success of CLN-based vaccines in preclinical studies, several challenges remain. The immunodominance of the CP scaffold can suppress the antibody response to the displayed antigen [57]. Computational strategies to reduce CP immunogenicity include the removal of dominant B cell epitopes from the CP surface [58]. The size of the displayed antigen is also a constraint; large antigens can sterically hinder assembly or reduce particle yield [59]. Computational modeling of antigen-CP fusions is used to predict the maximum permissible antigen size for a given insertion site [60].
The production of CLNs at commercial scale requires high-yield expression systems and robust purification protocols [61]. Computational optimization of codon usage and mRNA secondary structure can improve expression yields in bacterial or insect cell systems [62]. The development of universal CLN platforms that can accommodate a wide range of antigens without redesign of the CP scaffold is an active area of research [63].
Conclusion
Computational design has become an indispensable tool for engineering viral capsid-like nanoparticles for antigen display. The integration of structural biology, molecular dynamics, and protein design algorithms enables the rational construction of multivalent vaccine platforms with defined symmetry, controlled valency, and enhanced stability. These platforms hold significant promise for the development of effective vaccines against veterinary pathogens, particularly those for which traditional vaccine approaches have been inadequate.
References
[1] Bachmann MF, Jennings GT. Vaccine delivery: a matter of size, geometry, kinetics and molecular patterns. Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10(11):787-796.
[2] Chackerian B. Virus-like particles: flexible platforms for vaccine development. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2007;6(3):381-390.
[3] Grgacic EV, Anderson DA. Virus-like particles: passport to immune recognition. Methods. 2006;40(1):60-65.
[4] Karch CP, Burkhard P. Vaccine technologies: from whole organisms to rationally designed protein assemblies. Biochem Pharmacol. 2016;120:1-14.
[5] Caspar DL, Klug A. Physical principles in the construction of regular viruses. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1962;27:1-24.
[6] Johnson JE, Speir JA. Quasi-equivalent viruses: a paradigm for protein assemblies. J Mol Biol. 1997;269(5):665-675.
[7] Rossmann MG, Johnson JE. Icosahedral RNA virus structure. Annu Rev Biochem. 1989;58:533-573.
[8] Zlotnick A. Theoretical aspects of virus capsid assembly. J Mol Recognit. 2005;18(6):479-490.
[9] Hagan MF, Chandler D. Dynamic pathways for viral capsid assembly. Biophys J. 2006;91(1):42-54.
[10] Elrad OM, Hagan MF. Mechanisms of size control and polymorphism in viral capsid assembly. Nano Lett. 2008;8(11):3850-3857.
[11] Noad R, Roy P. Virus-like particles as immunogens. Trends Microbiol. 2003;11(9):438-444.
[12] Tissot AC, Renhofa R, Schmitz N, et al. Versatile virus-like particle carrier for epitope based vaccines. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9809.
[13] Peabody DS. The RNA binding site of bacteriophage MS2 coat protein. EMBO J. 1993;12(2):595-600.
[14] Lua LH, Connors NK, Sainsbury F, et al. Bioengineering virus-like particles as vaccines. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2014;111(3):425-440.
[15] Roldao A, Mellado MC, Castilho LR, et al. Virus-like particles in vaccine development. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2010;9(10):1149-1176.
[16] Crisci E, Barcena J, Montoya M. Virus-like particles: the new frontier of vaccines for animal viral infections. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2012;148(3-4):211-225.
[17] Patel KG, Swartz JR. Surface functionalization of virus-like particles by direct conjugation using azide-alkyne click chemistry. Bioconjug Chem. 2011;22(3):376-387.
[18] Lee KW, Tey BT, Ho KL, et al. Computational prediction of insertion sites for foreign peptides on the surface of virus-like particles. J Mol Graph Model. 2016;68:1-10.
[19] Phelps JP, Dang N, Rasochova L. Inactivation and purification of cowpea mosaic virus-like particles displaying peptide antigens. J Virol Methods. 2007;141(2):146-153.
[20] Chen X, Zaro JL, Shen WC. Fusion protein linkers: property, design and functionality. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(10):1357-1369.
[21] Reddy ST, Swartz MA, Hubbell JA. Targeting dendritic cells with biomaterials: developing the next generation of vaccines. Trends Immunol. 2006;27(12):573-579.
[22] DiMaio F, Leaver-Fay A, Bradley P, et al. Modeling symmetric macromolecular structures in Rosetta3. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20450.
[23] Das R, Baker D. Macromolecular modeling with Rosetta. Annu Rev Biochem. 2008;77:363-382.
[24] Guerois R, Nielsen JE, Serrano L. Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. J Mol Biol. 2002;320(2):369-387.
[25] Kellogg EH, Leaver-Fay A, Baker D. Role of conformational sampling in computing mutation-induced changes in protein structure and stability. Proteins. 2011;79(3):830-838.
[26] Jegerlehner A, Tissot A, Lechner F, et al. A molecular assembly system that renders antigens of choice highly repetitive for induction of protective B cell responses. Vaccine. 2002;20(25-26):3104-3112.
[27] Chackerian B, Lowy DR, Schiller JT. Conjugation of a self-antigen to papillomavirus-like particles allows for efficient induction of protective autoantibodies. J Clin Invest. 2001;108(3):415-423.
[28] Schwarz B, Uchida M, Douglas T. Biomedical and catalytic opportunities of virus-like particles in nanotechnology. Adv Virus Res. 2017;97:1-60.
[29] Zeltins A. Construction and characterization of virus-like particles: a review. Mol Biotechnol. 2013;53(1):92-107.
[30] Bachmann MF, Rohrer UH, Kundig TM, et al. The influence of antigen organization on B cell responsiveness. Science. 1993;262(5138):1448-1451.
[31] Dintzis HM, Dintzis RZ, Vogelstein B. Molecular determinants of immunogenicity: the immunon model of immune response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1976;73(10):3671-3675.
[32] Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar Y, Nussinov R, et al. PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(Web Server issue):W363-W367.
[33] Brune KD, Leneghan DB, Brian IJ, et al. Plug-and-display: decoration of virus-like particles via isopeptide bonds for modular immunization. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19234.
[34] Thrane S, Janitzek CM, Matondo S, et al. Bacterial superglue generates a full-length circumsporozoite protein virus-like particle vaccine capable of inducing high and durable antibody responses. Malar J. 2016;15(1):545.
[35] Zakeri B, Fierer JO, Celik E, et al. Peptide tag forming a rapid covalent bond to a protein, through engineering a bacterial adhesin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(12):E690-E697.
[36] Kissmann J, Ausar SF, Foubert TR, et al. Physical stabilization of Norwalk virus-like particles. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97(10):4208-4218.
[37] Ausar SF, Foubert TR, Hudson MH, et al. Conformational stability and disassembly of Norwalk virus-like particles. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(28):19478-19488.
[38] Ashcroft AE, Lago H, Macedo JM, et al. Engineering thermal stability in virus-like particles. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2005;5(12):2034-2041.
[39] Kortemme T, Baker D. A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein-protein complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99(22):14116-14121.
[40] Kellogg EH, Leaver-Fay A, Baker D. Role of conformational sampling in computing mutation-induced changes in protein structure and stability. Proteins. 2011;79(3):830-838.
[41] Dombkowski AA, Sultana KZ, Craig DB. Protein disulfide engineering. FEBS Lett. 2014;588(2):206-212.
[42] Shoemaker GK, van Duijn E, Crawford SE, et al. Norwalk virus assembly and stability monitored by mass spectrometry. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2010;9(8):1742-1751.
[43] Li Y, Zhang X, Luo M. Structural and functional characterization of the capsid protein of a human norovirus. J Virol. 2015;89(4):2026-2040.
[44] Pogan R, Schneider C, Reimer R, et al. A variant of norovirus GII.4 capsid protein with increased stability and immunogenicity. J Virol. 2018;92(15):e00318-18.
[45] Leaver-Fay A, Tyka M, Lewis SM, et al. ROSETTA3: an object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. Methods Enzymol. 2011;487:545-574.
[46] Carrillo-Tripp M, Shepherd CM, Borelli IA, et al. VIPERdb2: an enhanced and web API enabled relational database for structural virology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue):D436-D442.
[47] Tumban E, Peabody J, Peabody DS, et al. A universal virus-like particle-based vaccine for human papillomavirus: longevity of protection and role of endogenous and exogenous adjuvants. Vaccine. 2013;31(41):4647-4654.
[48] Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, et al. GROMACS: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX. 2015;1-2:19-25.
[49] Phillips JC, Braun R, Wang W, et al. Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J Comput Chem. 2005;26(16):1781-1802.
[50] Marrink SJ, Risselada HJ, Yefimov S, et al. The MARTINI force field: coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. J Phys Chem B. 2007;111(27):7812-7824.
[51] Jegerlehner A, Zabel F, Langer A, et al. Bacterially produced recombinant influenza vaccines based on virus-like particles. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78947.
[52] Pushko P, Tumpey TM, Bu F, et al. Influenza virus-like particles comprised of the HA, NA, and M1 proteins of H9N2 influenza virus induce protective immune responses in BALB/c mice. Vaccine. 2005;23(50):5751-5759.
[53] Binjawadagi B, Lakshmanappa YS, Longchao Z, et al. Development of a porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus-like-particle-based vaccine and evaluation of its immunogenicity in pigs. Arch Virol. 2016;161(6):1579-1589.
[54] Renukaradhya GJ, Meng XJ, Calvert JG, et al. Inactivated and subunit vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome: current status and future direction. Vaccine. 2015;33(27):3065-3072.
[55] Xu J, Guo HC, Wei YQ, et al. Self-assembly of virus-like particles of canine parvovirus capsid protein expressed in Escherichia coli and application in antibody detection. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98(14):6269-6278.
[56] Yuan W, Parrish CR. Canine parvovirus capsid assembly and differences in mammalian and insect cells. Virology. 2001;279(2):546-557.
[57] Jegerlehner A, Storni T, Lipowsky G, et al. Regulation of IgG antibody responses by epitope density and CD21-mediated co-stimulation. Eur J Immunol. 2002;32(11):3305-3314.
[58] Tissot AC, Renhofa R, Schmitz N, et al. Versatile virus-like particle carrier for epitope based vaccines. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9809.
[59] Plummer EM, Manchester M. Viral nanoparticles and virus-like particles: platforms for contemporary vaccine design. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2011;3(2):174-196.
[60] Mateu MG. Assembly, stability and dynamics of virus capsids. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2013;531(1-2):65-79.
[61] Vicente T, Roldao A, Peixoto C, et al. Large-scale production and purification of VLP-based vaccines. J Invertebr Pathol. 2011;107 Suppl:S42-S48.
[62] Gustafsson C, Govindarajan S, Minshull J. Codon bias and heterologous protein expression. Trends Biotechnol. 2004;22(7):346-353.
[63] Brune KD, Howarth M. New routes and opportunities for modular construction of particulate vaccines: stick, click, and glue. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1432. *** Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.