# [Computational Prediction of Cross-Species Receptor Binding](/knowledge/bioinformatics/computational-prediction-cross-species-receptor-binding-bat-coronavirus-spike-evolution) Dynamics in Emerging Zoonotic Coronaviruses ## Key Takeaways - The zoonotic potential of coronaviruses is primarily determined by the interaction between the viral spike (S) glycoprotein's receptor-binding domain (RBD) and host cell surface receptors, most commonly angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). Computational methods like molecular docking, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and binding free energy calculations (e.g., MM-PBSA) are crucial for predicting these cross-species binding dynamics and assessing spillover risk. - Key structural features of the RBD, particularly the receptor-binding motif (RBM), and specific amino acid residues within it (e.g., positions 486, 493, 498, 501 in SARS-CoV-2) are critical determinants of binding affinity to different host ACE2 orthologs. Mutations at these sites can significantly alter host tropism. - Machine learning classifiers, trained on sequence and structural features of RBD-ACE2 interactions, are employed to screen large viral sequence databases for variants with high predicted affinity to susceptible animal hosts, thereby guiding targeted surveillance efforts. - Molecular dynamics simulations provide insights into the dynamic nature of the RBD-ACE2 complex, revealing conformational changes, hydrogen bond stability, and collective motions that influence binding. Analysis of these trajectories, including RMSF and hydrogen bond occupancy, helps elucidate species-specific adaptations. - An integrated computational pipeline, combining machine learning for initial screening, molecular docking for pose prediction, MD simulations for refinement, and MM-PBSA for free energy estimation, followed by experimental validation (e.g., SPR, pseudovirus assays), is essential for robust cross-species risk assessment. - Limitations in computational modeling include force field inaccuracies, inadequate representation of solvent effects, and challenges in incorporating glycan flexibility. Post-entry factors beyond receptor binding also play a significant role in determining successful host tropism and spillover. --- ## Introduction The emergence of zoonotic coronaviruses from animal reservoirs represents a persistent threat to veterinary and public health. Coronaviruses within the genera *Alphacoronavirus*, *Betacoronavirus*, *Gammacoronavirus*, and *Deltacoronavirus* circulate widely in bats, birds, and domestic livestock [1]. The capacity for a coronavirus to cross the species barrier is primarily governed by the molecular interaction between the viral spike (S) glycoprotein receptor-binding domain (RBD) and a host cell surface receptor, most commonly angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) [2]. Understanding and predicting these cross-species receptor binding dynamics is essential for assessing zoonotic spillover risk and for designing surveillance strategies in animal populations [3]. Computational methods have become indispensable for modeling these interactions at atomic resolution. [Molecular docking](/knowledge/bioinformatics/docking-algorithms-autodock-glide-and-beyond) simulations, molecular dynamics (MD) trajectories, binding free energy calculations, and machine learning classifiers collectively enable the prediction of host tropism from sequence and structural data [4]. This article provides an exhaustive review of these computational approaches, focusing on their application to RBD-ACE2 interactions across bat, avian, and mammalian species. The discussion emphasizes the biophysical mechanisms underlying host switching and the structural motifs that facilitate adaptation to new receptors. ## Structural Basis of Coronavirus Receptor Binding Coronavirus spike proteins are class I viral fusion glycoproteins that mediate host cell attachment and entry [5]. The S protein is a homotrimer, with each monomer composed of S1 and S2 subunits. The S1 subunit contains the RBD, which directly engages the host receptor [6]. For betacoronaviruses such as SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, and related bat SARS-like coronaviruses (SL-CoVs), the primary receptor is ACE2 [2]. Other coronaviruses use alternative receptors: for example, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) uses dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4), and some alphacoronaviruses use aminopeptidase N (APN) [7]. The RBD adopts a beta-sheet-rich core with a receptor-binding motif (RBM) that forms the direct contact interface with ACE2 [8]. Key structural features of the RBD-ACE2 interface include a network of hydrogen bonds, salt bridges, and hydrophobic contacts [9]. Critical residues in the RBM, such as those at positions 486, 493, 498, and 501 (SARS-CoV-2 numbering), have been shown to modulate binding affinity across species [10]. Mutations at these positions can enhance or reduce binding to ACE2 orthologs from different animal hosts [11]. ## [Molecular Docking](/knowledge/bioinformatics/docking-algorithms-autodock-glide-and-beyond) Simulations for Cross-Species Binding Prediction [Molecular docking](/knowledge/bioinformatics/docking-algorithms-autodock-glide-and-beyond) is a computational technique that predicts the preferred orientation of a ligand (the RBD) when bound to a receptor (ACE2) to form a stable complex [12]. [Docking algorithms](/knowledge/bioinformatics/docking-algorithms-autodock-glide-and-beyond) sample conformational space and score candidate poses using energy-based scoring functions [13]. For cross-species studies, docking is used to evaluate the binding affinity of RBD variants against ACE2 orthologs from multiple species, including bats, civets, swine, ferrets, and poultry [14]. The docking workflow typically involves preparing the RBD and ACE2 structures from experimentally determined coordinates (X-ray crystallography or cryo-electron microscopy) or from homology models [15]. Rigid docking approaches treat both molecules as rigid bodies, while flexible docking allows side-chain or backbone flexibility in the RBM [16]. Software packages commonly used for this purpose include AutoDock Vina, HADDOCK, and RosettaDock, which employ different scoring functions such as empirical, force field-based, or knowledge-based potentials [17]. Validation of docking results is performed by comparing predicted poses with known co-crystal structures and by calculating root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) values [18]. A successful docking simulation reproduces the native binding mode with an RMSD below 2.0 Angstroms [19]. For cross-species predictions, docking scores are correlated with experimentally measured binding affinities (Kd values) from surface plasmon resonance or biolayer interferometry assays [20]. ## [Molecular Dynamics Simulations](/knowledge/bioinformatics/molecular-dynamics-simulations-of-proteins-and-force-fields) of RBD-ACE2 Complexes [Molecular dynamics simulations](/knowledge/bioinformatics/molecular-dynamics-simulations-of-proteins-and-force-fields) provide a time-resolved view of the RBD-ACE2 interaction by solving Newton's equations of motion for all atoms in the system [21]. MD simulations capture conformational changes, hydrogen bond dynamics, and solvent effects that are not accessible through static docking [22]. Typical simulation timescales range from 100 nanoseconds to several microseconds for RBD-ACE2 complexes [23]. The simulation setup includes solvation of the complex in a water box with explicit water models (e.g., TIP3P) and addition of counterions to neutralize the system [24]. Force fields such as CHARMM36, AMBER ff14SB, or OPLS-AA are used to parameterize the protein atoms [25]. The system is energy minimized, equilibrated in the NVT and NPT ensembles, and then subjected to production runs [26]. Analysis of MD trajectories focuses on several metrics. Root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF) identifies flexible regions in the RBM and ACE2 interface [27]. Hydrogen bond occupancy quantifies the stability of specific inter-residue contacts over the simulation [28]. Principal component analysis (PCA) reveals collective motions of the RBD that may be important for receptor recognition [29]. [Markov state models](/knowledge/bioinformatics/markov-state-models-in-molecular-dynamics-simulations) (MSMs) can be constructed from long MD trajectories to identify metastable conformational states and transition pathways [30]. For cross-species studies, MD simulations are performed for RBD-ACE2 complexes from different host species. Comparative analysis of interaction energies and conformational dynamics reveals species-specific adaptations [31]. For example, simulations of bat coronavirus RBDs with human ACE2 have identified mutations that stabilize the interface and increase binding affinity [32]. ## Binding Free Energy Calculations Binding free energy calculations provide a quantitative estimate of the strength of the RBD-ACE2 interaction [33]. The most widely used method for this purpose is the Molecular Mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM-PBSA) approach [34]. MM-PBSA calculates the free energy of binding as the difference between the free energies of the complex, receptor, and ligand in solution [35]. The MM-PBSA workflow involves extracting snapshots from an MD trajectory, calculating the molecular mechanics energy (EMM) in the gas phase, adding the polar solvation free energy from the Poisson-Boltzmann equation, and adding the nonpolar solvation free energy from a solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) term [36]. The entropic contribution is often estimated using [normal mode analysis](/knowledge/bioinformatics/normal-mode-analysis-and-elastic-network-models-for-protein-flexibility) or omitted in relative binding free energy comparisons [37]. An alternative method is the Linear Interaction Energy (LIE) approach, which uses empirical scaling factors for electrostatic and van der Waals interaction energies [38]. Thermodynamic integration (TI) and [free energy perturbation](/knowledge/bioinformatics/free-energy-perturbation-calculations-in-drug-discovery) (FEP) methods offer higher accuracy but are computationally more expensive [39]. MM-PBSA calculations have been applied to predict the effect of RBD mutations on ACE2 binding across species [40]. Studies have shown that mutations such as N501Y and K417N in the SARS-CoV-2 RBD increase binding affinity to murine and canine ACE2 orthologs [41]. These predictions have been validated by experimental binding assays, demonstrating the utility of MM-PBSA for cross-species risk assessment [42]. ## Machine Learning Classifiers for Spillover Risk Prediction Machine learning (ML) methods have been increasingly applied to predict host tropism and spillover risk from sequence and structural features [43]. ML classifiers are trained on datasets of known RBD-ACE2 interactions, with features derived from sequence alignments, structural descriptors, and physicochemical properties [44]. Feature engineering for ML models includes one-hot encoding of amino acid sequences, evolutionary conservation scores from position-specific scoring matrices (PSSMs), and structural features such as solvent accessibility, secondary structure propensity, and residue depth [45]. Graph neural networks (GNNs) have been used to represent protein-protein interfaces as graphs, where nodes represent residues and edges represent spatial contacts [46]. Common ML algorithms for this task include random forests, support vector machines (SVMs), gradient boosting machines (e.g., XGBoost), and deep neural networks [47]. The output is typically a binary classification (binding or non-binding) or a continuous score representing binding affinity [48]. Model performance is evaluated using metrics such as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), precision-recall curves, and cross-validation [49]. ML models have been used to screen large sequence databases of [bat coronaviruses](/knowledge/viruses/wildlife-viruses/bat-coronaviruses) for RBD variants with high predicted affinity to livestock ACE2 orthologs [50]. These predictions guide targeted surveillance and experimental validation efforts [51]. Deep learning models, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs) applied to contact maps, have further improved prediction accuracy [52]. ## Key Structural Motifs and Mutational Landscapes Several structural motifs in the coronavirus RBD are critical for cross-species receptor binding. The RBM loop region, which contains the majority of contact residues, exhibits high sequence variability across coronavirus lineages [53]. In SARS-CoV-2, the RBM contains a beta-hairpin motif that inserts into a groove on the ACE2 surface [54]. The presence of a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary also influences host range by affecting spike protein priming [55]. Mutational landscapes of the RBD have been systematically explored using [deep mutational scanning](/knowledge/bioinformatics/deep-mutational-scanning-machine-learning-sars-cov-2-spike-antibody-escape) (DMS) [56]. DMS experiments measure the effect of every single amino acid substitution on ACE2 binding, generating comprehensive fitness maps [57]. Computational models trained on DMS data can predict the impact of novel mutations on cross-species binding [58]. For [bat coronaviruses](/knowledge/viruses/wildlife-viruses/bat-coronaviruses), key mutations that enable binding to non-bat ACE2 orthologs include changes at residues 493, 498, and 501 [59]. The substitution Q493H has been shown to enhance binding to human ACE2 by introducing a favorable electrostatic interaction [60]. Similarly, the N501Y mutation increases hydrophobic contacts with ACE2 residues Y41 and K353 [61]. ## Integration of Computational and Experimental Data A robust computational pipeline for cross-species receptor binding prediction integrates multiple methods in a hierarchical workflow [62]. The pipeline begins with sequence-based screening using ML classifiers to identify high-risk RBD variants [63]. Candidate variants are then subjected to [molecular docking](/knowledge/bioinformatics/docking-algorithms-autodock-glide-and-beyond) to generate initial binding poses [64]. The top-ranked complexes are refined using MD simulations, and binding free energies are calculated using MM-PBSA [65]. Finally, predictions are validated through experimental assays such as surface plasmon resonance or pseudovirus entry assays [66]. The following Mermaid diagram illustrates this integrated workflow: ```mermaid flowchart TD A["Viral Sequence Database"] --> B["Sequence Feature Extraction"] B --> C["Machine Learning Classifier"] C --> D["High-Risk RBD Variants"] D --> E["Molecular Docking with Host ACE2 Orthologs"] E --> F["Scoring and Pose Selection"] F --> G["Molecular Dynamics Simulations"] G --> H["Trajectory Analysis RMSF, H-Bonds, PCA"] H --> I["MM-PBSA Binding Free Energy Calculation"] I --> J["Predicted Binding Affinity"] J --> K["Experimental Validation SPR, Pseudovirus Assays"] K --> L["Spillover Risk Assessment"] ``` ## Applications to Bat, Avian, and Mammalian Hosts Coronaviruses circulating in bat populations represent a major reservoir for emerging zoonotic viruses [67]. Computational studies have focused on bat SARS-like coronaviruses (SL-CoVs) such as RaTG13, WIV1, and SHC014, which show variable binding to human and livestock ACE2 [68]. Docking and MD simulations have identified key residues in the bat RBD that must mutate to enable efficient binding to swine or bovine ACE2 [69]. Avian coronaviruses, including [infectious bronchitis virus](/knowledge/viruses/avian-viruses/infectious-bronchitis-virus) (IBV) in poultry, use different receptors such as APN or sialic acids [70]. Computational modeling of IBV spike-receptor interactions has been used to predict host range shifts between galliform and anseriform birds [71]. The structural comparison of avian versus mammalian receptor binding is covered in detail in the article [Structural Comparison of Avian Versus Mammalian Influenza Receptor Binding](/knowledge/bioinformatics/structural-comparison-of-avian-vs-mammalian-influenza-receptor-binding). For mammalian livestock species, computational predictions have been made for RBD binding to ACE2 orthologs from swine, cattle, horses, and companion animals such as cats and dogs [72]. These predictions inform risk assessments for reverse zoonosis (spillback) events, where human-adapted coronaviruses transmit to animals [73]. The article [Computational Prediction of Host Tropism and Receptor Binding Dynamics in Emerging Zoonotic Coronaviruses](/knowledge/bioinformatics/computational-prediction-host-tropism-receptor-binding-zoonotic-coronaviruses) provides further context on host tropism prediction. ## Limitations and Challenges Despite significant advances, [computational prediction of cross-species receptor binding](/knowledge/bioinformatics/computational-prediction-cross-species-receptor-binding-bat-coronavirus-spike-evolution) faces several limitations. Force field inaccuracies can lead to errors in binding free energy estimates [74]. Solvent effects, particularly the role of water molecules at the protein-protein interface, are often inadequately modeled [75]. The conformational flexibility of glycans on the spike protein, which can modulate receptor accessibility, is challenging to incorporate in simulations [76]. Experimental validation remains essential, as computational predictions can produce false positives or false negatives [77]. The availability of high-resolution structures for diverse ACE2 orthologs is limited, necessitating [homology modeling](/knowledge/bioinformatics/homology-modeling-principles-and-practices) which introduces additional uncertainty [78]. Receptor binding is only one factor in host tropism; post-entry factors such as viral replication, immune evasion, and host proteases also determine spillover success [79]. ## Future Directions Emerging computational methods promise to improve the accuracy and throughput of cross-species binding predictions. AlphaFold2 and related deep learning models enable accurate prediction of RBD and ACE2 structures without experimental templates [80]. Protein language models, such as ESM-1b and ProtBERT, can learn evolutionary constraints directly from sequence data and predict mutation effects on binding [81]. Enhanced sampling techniques, including replica exchange MD and metadynamics, allow exploration of rare conformational events relevant to receptor binding [82]. Coarse-grained MD simulations enable simulation of larger systems over longer timescales, facilitating the study of spike trimer-receptor interactions [83]. The integration of cryo-electron microscopy data with MD simulations, as discussed in [Integrating Cryo-EM and Molecular Dynamics Simulations to Elucidate Glycan Shield Dynamics in Emerging Zoonotic Coronaviruses](/knowledge/bioinformatics/cryo-em-molecular-dynamics-glycan-shield-zoonotic-coronaviruses), provides a more complete picture of spike dynamics. ## Conclusion [Computational prediction of cross-species receptor binding](/knowledge/bioinformatics/computational-prediction-cross-species-receptor-binding-bat-coronavirus-spike-evolution) dynamics is a critical component of zoonotic coronavirus risk assessment. [Molecular docking](/knowledge/bioinformatics/docking-algorithms-autodock-glide-and-beyond), MD simulations, MM-PBSA calculations, and machine learning classifiers each contribute unique insights into the molecular determinants of host tropism. The integration of these methods into a unified pipeline, combined with experimental validation, enables the identification of high-risk RBD variants circulating in animal reservoirs. Continued development of computational tools and expansion of structural databases will further enhance our ability to predict and prevent future zoonotic spillover events. ## References [1] Diseases of Poultry, 14th Edition. Wiley-Blackwell. [2] Merck Veterinary Manual, 12th Edition. Merck & Co. [3] Veterinary Virology, 4th Edition. Academic Press. [4] Leach, A.R. Molecular Modelling: Principles and Applications, 2nd Edition. Pearson. [5] Fields Virology, 7th Edition. Wolters Kluwer. [6] Structural Biology of Viruses. Oxford University Press. [7] Coronaviruses: Molecular Biology and Pathogenesis. Caister Academic Press. [8] Wang, Q., et al. Structural and Functional Basis of SARS-CoV-2 Entry. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. [9] Li, F. Structure, Function, and Evolution of Coronavirus Spike Proteins. Annual Review of Virology. [10] Letko, M., et al. Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS-CoV-2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses. Nature Microbiology. [11] Wan, Y., et al. Receptor Recognition by the Novel Coronavirus from Wuhan: an Analysis Based on Decade-Long Structural Studies of SARS Coronavirus. Journal of Virology. [12] Morris, G.M., et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. Journal of Computational Chemistry. [13] Trott, O., Olson, A.J. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. Journal of Computational Chemistry. [14] Goh, G.K., et al. [Molecular docking](/knowledge/bioinformatics/docking-algorithms-autodock-glide-and-beyond) studies of bat coronavirus spike protein receptor binding domain with ACE2 from different species. Veterinary Microbiology. [15] Waterhouse, A., et al. SWISS-MODEL: homology modelling of protein structures and complexes. Nucleic Acids Research. [16] Dominguez, C., et al. HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. Journal of the American Chemical Society. [17] Gray, J.J., et al. Protein-protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. Journal of Molecular Biology. [18] Huang, S.Y., Zou, X. Advances and challenges in [protein-ligand docking](/knowledge/bioinformatics/computational-modeling-of-protein-ligand-docking). International Journal of Molecular Sciences. [19] Chen, R., et al. ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics. [20] Kastritis, P.L., Bonvin, A.M. On the binding affinity of macromolecular interactions: daring to ask why proteins interact. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. [21] Karplus, M., McCammon, J.A. [Molecular dynamics simulations](/knowledge/bioinformatics/molecular-dynamics-simulations-of-proteins-and-force-fields) of biomolecules. Nature Structural Biology. [22] Dror, R.O., et al. Biomolecular simulation: a computational microscope for molecular biology. Annual Review of Biophysics. [23] Shaw, D.E., et al. Atomic-level characterization of the structural dynamics of proteins. Science. [24] Jorgensen, W.L., et al. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. Journal of Chemical Physics. [25] Huang, J., MacKerell, A.D. CHARMM36 all-atom additive protein force field: validation based on comparison to NMR data. Journal of Computational Chemistry. [26] Abraham, M.J., et al. GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX. [27] Amadei, A., et al. Essential dynamics of proteins. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics. [28] Baker, E.N., Hubbard, R.E. Hydrogen bonding in globular proteins. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. [29] Kitao, A., Go, N. Investigating protein dynamics in collective coordinate space. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. [30] Chodera, J.D., Noe, F. [Markov state models](/knowledge/bioinformatics/markov-state-models-in-molecular-dynamics-simulations) of biomolecular conformational dynamics. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. [31] Li, Y., et al. [Molecular dynamics simulations](/knowledge/bioinformatics/molecular-dynamics-simulations-of-proteins-and-force-fields) of the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. [32] Starr, T.N., et al. [Deep mutational scanning](/knowledge/bioinformatics/deep-mutational-scanning-machine-learning-spike-escape-antibodies) of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals constraints on folding and ACE2 binding. Cell. [33] Kollman, P.A., et al. Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Accounts of Chemical Research. [34] Massova, I., Kollman, P.A. Combined molecular mechanical and continuum solvent approach (MM-PBSA/GBSA) to predict ligand binding. Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design. [35] Genheden, S., Ryde, U. The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery. [36] Wang, J., et al. Development and testing of a general amber force field. Journal of Computational Chemistry. [37] Hou, T., et al. Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 1. The accuracy of binding free energy calculations based on [molecular dynamics simulations](/knowledge/bioinformatics/molecular-dynamics-simulations-of-proteins-and-force-fields). Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. [38] Aqvist, J., et al. A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. Protein Engineering. [39] Chipot, C., Pohorille, A. Free Energy Calculations: Theory and Applications in Chemistry and Biology. Springer. [40] Chen, J., et al. MM-PBSA binding free energy calculations of SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD variants with ACE2. Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics. [41] Luan, J., et al. Spike protein recognition of mammalian ACE2 predicts the host range of SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Virology. [42] Walls, A.C., et al. Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Cell. [43] Wardeh, M., et al. Predicting mammalian hosts in which novel coronaviruses can be detected. Nature Communications. [44] Mollentze, N., et al. Identifying and prioritizing potential human-infecting viruses from their genome sequences. PLoS Biology. [45] Chen, L., et al. Sequence-based prediction of protein-protein interaction sites. Briefings in Bioinformatics. [46] Fout, A., et al. Protein interface prediction using graph convolutional networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. [47] Chen, T., Guestrin, C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. [48] LeCun, Y., et al. Deep learning. Nature. [49] Hastie, T., et al. The Elements of Statistical Learning, 2nd Edition. Springer. [50] Becker, D.J., et al. Predicting wildlife hosts of betacoronaviruses for SARS-CoV-2 sampling prioritization. bioRxiv. [51] Olival, K.J., et al. Host and viral traits predict zoonotic spillover from mammals. Nature. [52] Zeng, H., et al. Convolutional neural network for predicting protein-protein interactions. BMC Bioinformatics. [53] Hulswit, R.J., et al. Coronavirus spike protein and tropism changes. Advances in Virus Research. [54] Lan, J., et al. Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain bound to the ACE2 receptor. Nature. [55] Hoffmann, M., et al. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell. [56] Fowler, D.M., Fields, S. [Deep mutational scanning](/knowledge/bioinformatics/deep-mutational-scanning-machine-learning-sars-cov-2-rbd-escape-mutations): a new style of protein science. Nature Methods. [57] Starr, T.N., et al. [Deep mutational scanning](/knowledge/bioinformatics/deep-mutational-scanning-machine-learning-sars-cov-2-spike-antibody-escape) of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals constraints on folding and ACE2 binding. Cell. [58] Haddox, H.K., et al. Mapping mutational effects along the evolutionary landscape of HIV envelope. eLife. [59] Liu, K., et al. Binding and molecular basis of the bat coronavirus RaTG13 virus to ACE2 in humans and other species. Cell. [60] Shang, J., et al. Structural basis of receptor recognition by SARS-CoV-2. Nature. [61] Gu, H., et al. Adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 to ACE2 in humans and animals. Cell Host & Microbe. [62] Sironi, M., et al. SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a genetic, epidemiological, and evolutionary perspective. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. [63] Grubaugh, N.D., et al. Tracking virus outbreaks in the twenty-first century. Nature Microbiology. [64] Kitchen, D.B., et al. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. [65] Wang, E., et al. End-point binding free energy calculation with MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA: strategies and applications in drug design. Chemical Reviews. [66] Nie, J., et al. Establishment and validation of a pseudovirus neutralization assay for SARS-CoV-2. Emerging Microbes & Infections. [67] Calisher, C.H., et al. Bats: important reservoir hosts of emerging viruses. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. [68] Menachery, V.D., et al. A SARS-like cluster of circulating [bat coronaviruses](/knowledge/viruses/wildlife-viruses/bat-coronaviruses) shows potential for human emergence. Nature Medicine. [69] Ge, X.Y., et al. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature. [70] Cavanagh, D. Coronavirus avian [infectious bronchitis virus](/knowledge/viruses/avian-viruses/infectious-bronchitis-virus). Veterinary Research. [71] Bickerton, E., et al. The S2 subunit of the [infectious bronchitis virus](/knowledge/viruses/avian-viruses/infectious-bronchitis-virus) spike protein is important for host range. Journal of Virology. [72] Damas, J., et al. Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 predicted by comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [73] Oude Munnink, B.B., et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on mink farms between humans and mink and back to humans. Science. [74] Piana, S., et al. How robust are protein folding simulations with respect to force field parameterization? Biophysical Journal. [75] Barillari, C., et al. Classification of water molecules in protein binding sites. Journal of the American Chemical Society. [76] Grant, O.C., et al. Analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein glycan shield: implications for immune recognition. bioRxiv. [77] Warren, G.L., et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. [78] Kryshtafovych, A., et al. Evaluation of template-based modeling in CASP13. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. [79] Parrish, C.R., et al. Cross-species virus transmission and the emergence of new epidemic diseases. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. [80] Jumper, J., et al. Highly accurate [protein structure](/knowledge/bioinformatics/protein-structure-biophysical-levels-folding 2) prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. [81] Rives, A., et al. Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [82] Sugita, Y., Okamoto, Y. Replica-exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding. Chemical Physics Letters. [83] Marrink, S.J., et al. The MARTINI force field: coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. Journal of Physical Chemistry B. ## Related Clinical & Scientific Guides * [A Practical Guide to Detecting Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Shotgun Metagenomic Data](/knowledge/bioinformatics/a-practical-guide-to-detecting-antimicrobial-resistance-genes-in-shotgun-metagenomic-data) * [Computational Immunology: Modeling the Immune System](/knowledge/bioinformatics/computational-immunology-modeling-the-immune-system) * [How to Set Hard Filters for Germline Variant Calling: A Practical Guide to GATK Best Practices](/knowledge/bioinformatics/how-to-set-hard-filters-for-germline-variant-calling-a-practical-guide-to-gatk-best-practices)