OJBIPHYOpen Journal of Biophysics2164-5388Scientific Research Publishing10.4236/ojbiphy.2023.133004OJBIPHY-126637ArticlesBiomedical&Life Sciences Physics&Mathematics In Silico Evaluation of the Potential Interference of Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376 in the Binding of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to Human Nanobody Nb20 YuriAlves de Oliveira Só1*MarceloLopes Pereira Junior2WiliamFerreira Giozza2RafaelTimóteo de Sousa Junior2RicardoGargano1LuizAntônio Ribeiro Júnior1Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Brasília, Brasília, BrazilInstitute of Physics, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil27072023130335493, July 202325, July 2023 28, July 2023© Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 2014This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Virtual screening can be a helpful approach to propose treatments for COVID-19 by developing inhibitors for blocking the attachment of the virus to human cells. This study uses molecular docking, recovery time and dynamics to analyze if potential inhibitors of main protease (M pro) of SARS-CoV-2 can interfere in the attachment of nanobodies, specifically Nb20, in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2. The potential inhibitors are four compounds previously identified in a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based enzymatic assay for the SARS-CoV-2 M pro: Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376. The findings reveal that Boceprevir has the higher affinity with the RBD/Nb20 complex, followed by Calpain Inhibitor XII, GC376 and Calpain Inhibitor II. The recovery time indicates that the RBD/Nb20 complex needs a relatively short time to return to what it was before the presence of the ligands. For the RMSD the Boceprevir and Calpain Inhibitor II have the shortest interaction times, while Calpain Inhibitor XII shows slightly more interaction, but with significant pose fluctuations. On the other hand, GC376 remains stably bound for a longer duration compared to the other compounds, suggesting that they can potentially interfere with the neutralization process of Nb20.

SARS-CoV-2 Main protease M<sup>pro</sup> Boceprevir Calpain Inhibitor II Calpain Inhibitor XII GC376 Nanobody Nb20 In Silico1. Introduction

Global efforts have focused on developing vaccines and antiviral drugs to combat the COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which reached the pandemic in March 2020 [1] - [6] . As of June 2023, the virus has infected over 767 million individuals and caused over 6.9 million deaths worldwide [7] [8] . Recent successes have resulted in the production of vaccines being administered [9] [10] [11] [12] . However, despite the initiation of vaccination programs, no effective treatment for individuals already infected with the virus has been universally agreed upon.

Nanobodies, which are small antibodies found in camelids like llamas and camels, possess unique characteristics that make them highly effective in binding to specific antigens, including proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus [6] [13] [14] . These nanobodies have garnered considerable attention as a promising therapeutic approach against COVID-19. They can be engineered to target various virus proteins, such as the spike protein found in the receptor binding domain (RBD), the main protease, and other viral proteins. By doing so, they inhibit the function of these proteins and hinder viral entry into host cells and replication [15] [16] .

Compared to traditional antibodies, nanobodies offer several potential advantages. They have a compact size, which facilitates large-scale production and enhances stability. Moreover, they can be precisely designed to bind to specific regions of viral proteins, reducing the risk of mutations that could undermine the treatment’s effectiveness [17] [18] .

At the same time, numerous drugs have been extensively studied and proposed to combat SARS-CoV-2, employing diverse mechanisms, whether acting on the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 or on the main protease (Mpro) that participates in the viral replication process [19] [20] [21] [22] . These drugs can potentially interfere with the function of nanobodies or work synergistically to enhance treatment outcomes. Given these features, we selected four compounds: Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376. These compounds were previously identified in a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based enzymatic assay targeting the SARS-CoV-2 the Mpro [23] [24] . They have demonstrated potent activity, with IC50 values ranging from single-digit to submicromolar concentrations in the enzymatic assay [23] .

In this study, we conducted molecular docking and dynamics analyses to investigate the potential interactions of the four previously mentioned compounds, which are known to interact with Mpro. We aimed to estimate whether these compounds could interfere with the neutralization process of RBD of SARS-CoV-2 by the human nanobody Nb20 or potentially act synergistically to improve the treatment against SARS-CoV-2.

2. Materials and Methods2.1. Protein Preparation

Figure 1 presents the critical proteins involved in the RBD/Nb20 interaction obtained from Protein Data Bank, ID 7JVB [17] . In Figure 1(a), the Nb20 protein is blue, while the Sars-CoV-2 RBD is red. We highlighted the inhibition region between these proteins with a black square in Figure 1(b). The GLN493, ARG31, TYR104, GLU484, and ARG97 are the residues that interact via hydrogen bonds within the RBD/Nb20 interface. Table 1 shows the residues participating in the Nb20/SARS-Cov-2 interactions and respective distances for the hydrogen bonds. Figure 1(c) illustrates the binding site surface using the following color code: grey, red, blue, and white for carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen atoms, respectively. The protein resolution is 2.45 Å, and no pKa prediction was performed. We have considered all the crucial residues in the RDB/Nb20 interface and only metal ions in the docking study.

2.2. Ligand Preparation

The Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376 3D structures were extracted from PubChem [25] . The chemical structures of these compounds are presented in Figure 2, while relevant information such as PubChem ID, molecular weight, and molecular formula is shown in Table 2.

Residues participating in the nanobody Nb20/SARS-CoV-2 interactions and respective distances for the hydrogen bonds
Hydrogen Bonds
Nanobody Nb20SARS-CoV-22*Distance H-A (Å)
AminoacidResidueAminoacidResidue
GLN493SER4943.586
GLN493ALA292.939
GLN493ARG973.133
LEU492ARG973.372
PHE490ARG973.267
GLU484TYR1042.267
GLU484ARG313.085
GLU484ARG312.562
GLU484ARG313.167
MET55ARG312.838
MET55ARG312.676
 Extra information of Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376
CompoundPubChem CIDMolecular Weight [g/mol]Molecular Formula
Boceprevir10,324,367519.7C27H45N5O5
Calpain Inhibitor II20,086,354378.5C20H30N2O5
Calpain Inhibitor XII16,760,340482.6C26H34N4O5
GC37671,481,119507.5C21H30N3NaO8S
2.3. Molecular Docking Simulations

We used molecular docking simulations to analyze the non-covalent binding between the RBD/Nb20 protein complex (see Figure 1) and four small molecules presented in Figure 2. The docking simulations were conducted using the Webina-autodock 1.0.2 server [26] , which employs the Chemistry at HARvard Macromolecular Mechanics (CHARMM) force field and a blind docking strategy [27] .

The Protein-Ligand Interaction Profiler (PLIP) server [28] was used to characterize the interaction between each compound and the RBD/Nb20 complex, with a focus on the interface between the two proteins, which is crucial for blocking coronavirus entry and replication, see Figure 1(b). The simulation box used for ligand screening was also limited to this interface, with dimensions of 28 Å × 0 Å × 10 Å, and a center point of (32, −36, 2) Å, which corresponds to the region of primary interest, consisting of the main interaction site between the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 and Nb20 protein. The ligand positions and binding affinities were estimated with an accuracy of ±2 Å, and ±0.01 Kcal/mol, respectively.

2.4. Recovering Time Calculations

The recovery time ( τ ) [29] [30] of a substance after it has adsorbed on a solid surface can be calculated using the following equation from transition state theory:

τ = ν 0 − 1 e E a d / k B T , (1)

were, ν 0 is the attempt frequency, which is approximately 1012 s−1 [31] , T is the temperature (set to 300 K), k B is Boltzmann’s constant, and E a d is the desorption energy. Desorption refers to releasing a substance from the interface between a solid surface and a solution. According to the equation above, a more negative value of E a d leads to a longer recovery time. In other words, the activation energy ( E a ) required to overcome the desorption process is directly proportional to E a d . Thus, the recovery time can be used to estimate the time required for a complex to return to what it was before the presence of the ligand.

2.5. Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Additionally, we performed a molecular dynamics (MD) simulation with a time on the order of the smallest value obtained for the recovery time, using the NAMD computational package [32] and CHARMM36 [33] force field, to estimate if the ligands can quickly escape the chosen binding site and, thus, not interfere with the RBD/Nb20 interactions. If the ligands are not stable in the region of RBD/Nb20 interaction, they are expected to not compete with Nb20. The number of molecules, pressure, and temperature were kept constant using Langevin dynamics in the NPT ensemble at 300 K and 1 atm, respectively. We computed the system’s temporal evolution to calculate the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD). The MD snapshots, trajectories, and RMSD calculations were obtained using the visualization and analysis software (VMD) [34] .

3. Results and Discussion

We begin our discussion by presenting the molecular docking results. The ligand poses with the lowest binding energy affinity (ΔG free energy) were selected based on their docking scores, corresponding to the most likely and stable binding modes [35] .

The results of the docking simulations are presented in Table 3, and they indicate that all four ligands have significant binding affinities for the target proteins. Among them, Boceprevir shows the highest binding affinity for the RBD/Nb20 proteins, with a value of approximately −7.3 Kcal/mol, while Calpain02 exhibited the lowest binding affinity of about −5.4 Kcal/mol. We observed that the ligands with a higher molecular weight tended to have more stable docking results, evident when contrasting information in Table 2 and Table 3.

In previous studies, similar binding affinity results for other ligand species were reported for the interaction of RBD with the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) protein, with docking scores ranging from −3.2 to −9.8 kcal/mol [36] [37] . In Table 3, the docking affinities of the ligands are comparable to the ones for (S,S)-2-1-carboxy-2-[3-(3,5-dichlorobenzyl)-3H-imidazol4-yl]-ethylamino-4-methylpentanoic acid (MLN-4760). This potent inhibitor alters the conformation of ACE-2 and prevents the binding of SARS-CoV-2 and ACE-2 [38] . The docking score of MLN-4760 was −7.28 kcal/mol, similar to Boceprevir’s docking score in this study.

Lowest binding affinities ΔG (in Kcal/mol) obtained for the ligands studied here, when interacting with RBD/Nb20 proteins
CompoundΔG [Kcal/mol]
Boceprevir−7.3
Calpain Inhibitor II−5.4
Calpain Inhibitor XII−6.2
GC376−6.0

In Figure 3, the binding site surfaces (BSS) are presented for the ligand conformations with the RBD/Nb20 proteins, showing the best results in molecular docking simulations. Only the region of interest displayed in Figure 1(b) is depicted. The color code used to represent the different atoms is grey, red, blue, and white, indicating carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, respectively. The ball-and-stick representation uses cyan, red, and white to show carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen atoms. Overall, the ligands fit nicely inside the cavity, which is the core pocket region of the RBD/Nb20 proteins, shown in Figure 1(a). Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376 exhibited adsorption regions in the interaction with the RBD/Nb20 complex and tended to interact with oxygen and nitrogen atoms.

The interactions between amino acid residues of RBD/Nb20 proteins and ligands are depicted in Figure 4, generated using PLIP. The ligands are represented as sticks, with carbon and oxygen atoms in orange and red, respectively. The color code highlights hydrophobic interactions in red, hydrogen bonds in green, π-stacking in blue, and salt bridges in purple. Figure 4 illustrates that Boceprevir (Figure 4(a)), Calpain Inhibitor II (Figure 4(b)), Calpain Inhibitor XII (Figure 4(c)), and GC376 (Figure 4(d)) interact with RBD/Nb20 proteins mainly through 2, 4, 1, and 3 hydrogen bonds and 6, 3, 5, and 3 hydrophobic interactions with distinct amino acid residues in both RBD and Nb20 proteins. Additionally, Figure 4(c) shows an π-stacking interaction between RBD/Nb20 and Calpain Inhibitor XII, while a salt bridge interaction with GC376 is visible in Figure 4(d).

Table 4 presents all the interactions between amino acid residues of RBD/Nb20 proteins and the ligands, along with their respective distances. Thirteen amino acid residues of the RBD/Nb20 proteins were identified as interacting with the ligands. Specifically, the RBD amino acid residues involved were ILE294 (5), ALA224 (1), GLU295 (2), SER162 (1), and HIS225 (1), while the

Nb20 amino acid residues were TYR117 (1), TYR173 (5), TYR163 (2), TYR121 (2), ARG71 (4), PHE165 (2), GLY164 (3), and ASN169 (4). Based on their higher occurrence, the results suggest that the target amino acid residues for this set of ligands are ARG71 and ASN169 from Nb20 and ILE294 from RBD.

Notably, Calpain Inhibitor II and Calpain Inhibitor XII exhibit higher hydrophobic interactions, while Boceprevir shows higher hydrogen bonds, and GC376 has quantities of hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonds equal. Additionally, the number of times the amino acid with the highest interaction (TYR) interacts with the ligands can be estimated, corresponding to ten interactions (eight hydrogen bonds and two hydrophobic interactions). This finding suggests that TYR is a significant amino acid in promoting attachment to RBD for this set of ligands (see Figure 5).

Based on the docking results, we calculate the recovery time (Equation (1)) of the proteins/ligand complexes to estimate if the ligands (Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376) interacted with the complex RBD/Nb20 for a short or long time. The recovery time represents the time necessary for the proteins to return to their original conformation. Table 5 presents the complex RBD/Nb20 recovery times with each inhibitor, with Boceprevir

Results from PLIP docked poses for the RBD/Nb20 interaction with Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376. The index A refers to an amino acid of the Human Nanobody Nb20 receptor and B the ones of the SARS-CoV-2
Boceprevir
Hydrophobic InteractionsHydrogen Bonds
Amino acidResidueDistance [Å]Amino acidResidueDistance H-A [Å]
TYR117A3.74ARG71A3.32
TYR173A3.64SER162B3.29
TYR173A3.97GLY164A2.15
ILE294B3.84ASN169A2.58
ILE294B3.83---
ILE294B3.54---
Calpain Inhibitor II
Hydrophobic InteractionsHydrogen Bonds
Amino acidResidueDistance [Å]Amino acidResidueDistance [Å]
ARG71A3.80GLY164A3.20
TYR163A3.66ASN169A3.11
PHE165A3.64---
TYR173A3.66---
ALA224B3.92---
GLU295B3.75---
Calpain Inhibitor XII
Hydrophobic InteractionsHydrogen Bondsπ-Stacking
Amino acidResidueDistance [Å]Amino acidResidueDistance H-A [Å]Amino acidResidueDistance [Å]
ARG71A3.69ASN169A2.10HIS225B4.55
TYR163A3.65------
PHE165A3.68------
TYR173A3.68------
ILE294B3.52------
GC376
Hydrophobic InteractionsHydrogen BondsSalt Bridges
Amino acidResidueDistance [Å]Amino acidResidueDistance H-A [Å]Amino acidResidueDistance [Å]
TYR173A3.82TYR121A2.60ARG71A4.98
ILE294B3.70TYR121A2.40---
GLU295B3.99GLY164A3.07---
---ASN169A1.93---
 Recovering time for the complex in the presence of the ligands studied here
Ligandτ [s]
Boceprevir2.08 × 10−7
Calpain Inhibitor II8.59 × 10−9
Calpain Inhibitor XII3.29 × 10−8
GC3762.35 × 10−8

demonstrating the highest time in order of 10−7 s. The recovery time range in order from 10−9 s to 10−7 s. This order of value indicates that the complex RBD/Nb20 needs a relatively short time to return to what it was before the presence of the inhibitors.

Based on the results of the recovery time, we conducted an MD simulation with a time on the order of the smallest value obtained for the recovery time to investigate whether the ligands can remain unstable or stable at the binding site of the RBD/Nb20 complex within this time frame. This is done using RMSD, the results are illustrated in Figure 6. The results show that Boceprevir interacts with the RBD/Nb20 for at least 600 ps, unlinking from the interaction site after this time, as can be seen by the high fluctuations of the RMSD after 600 ps. Calpain Inhibitor II rapidly moves out of the RBD/Nb20 interaction region, which justifies it is having the lowest recovery time value. This can be visualized in the RMSD, which presented high fluctuation in less than 100 ps. The Calpain Inhibitor XII has more time of interaction, with high fluctuation of the RMSD just in about 300 ps, the moment that the ligand moves out for the region of interaction. In about 390 ps, these ligands re-interact with the proteins in one different location, but with high changes of poses along the time, indicating that is not a

strong interaction. The GC376 presented the more stable interaction, and the RMSD indicates some fluctuations (in about 100 - 200 ps and 360 - 430 ps), but this ligand follows the change in RBD/Nb20 proteins. This trend can be evidenced in the RMSD, which shows little fluctuations over time. The final pose, at 1000 ps, of Calpain Inhibitor XII and GC376 is presented in Figure 7.

4. Conclusions

In this study, we used molecular docking and dynamics simulations to examine how Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376 interact with the RBD/Nb20 proteins. Nanobodies, such as Nb20, have shown promise in targeting the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 based on experimental studies. Our analysis of the binding site surface revealed pocket-like regions on the protein complex that primarily engage in hydrogen bond interactions with the compounds’ amino acid residues.

Our findings indicate that the affinity of the interactions ranges from −6.0 Kcal/mol to −7.2 Kcal/mol, with Boceprevir presenting the higher affinity and the Calpain Inhibitor II the minor. Additionally, the recovery time results indicate that the complex RBD/Nb20 can return to what it was before the presence of the inhibitors in a relatively short time, in the order of 10−7 s to 10−9 s. The MD simulations indicate that Boceprevir exhibits the highest binding affinity but does not fully occupy the binding site, similar to Calpain Inhibitor II. On the other hand, Calpain Inhibitor XII and GC376 interact more extensively with the RBD/Nb20 interface. However, Calpain Inhibitor XII displays high fluctuations and changes in binding poses, whereas GC376 remains stably bound for at least 1000 ps.

Therefore, our results suggest that GC376, in particular, may interfere with the neutralization process of the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 by the human nanobody Nb20. In contrast, the Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, and Calpain Inhibitor XII can be used simultaneously acting synergistically with the nanobody Nb20 in the process of treatment against SARS-CoV-2.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Brazilian research agencies CNPq, CAPES, and FAP-DF. L.A.R.J acknowledges the financial support from Brazilian Research Council FAP-DF grants 00193.00001808/2022-71, 00193-00001247/2021-20, 00193-00000857/2021-14, 00193-00001247/2021-20, and 00193-00000811/2021-97 and CNPq grants 302236/2018-0 and 350176/2022-1. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES)-Finance Code 88887.691997/2022-00. R.G. and L.A.R.J acknowledge CENAPAD-SP for providing computational facilities. L.A.R.J. gratefully acknowledges the support from ABIN grant 08/2019. L.A.R.J. acknowledges Núcleo de Computação de Alto Desempenho (NACAD) for providing the computational facilities through the Lobo Carneiro supercomputer. L.A.R.J. acknowledges the National Laboratory for Scientific Computing (LNCC/MCTI, Brazil) for providing HPC resources of the SDumont supercomputer (URL: http://sdumont.lncc.br), which have contributed to the research results reported within this paper. RTDS is supported by CNPq—Brazilian National Research Council (Grant 310941/2022-9 PQ-1D), FAPDF—Brazilian Federal District Research Support Foundation (Grant 625/2022 SISTεR City), and the University of Brasilia (Grant 7129 UnB COPEI).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors confirm that there is no conflict of interest.

Cite this paper

de Oliveira Só, Y.A., Junior, M.L.P., Giozza, W.F., de Sousa Junior, R.T., Gargano, R. and Júnior, L.A.R. (2023) In Silico Evaluation of the Potential Interference of Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376 in the Binding of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to Human Nanobody Nb20. Open Journal of Biophysics, 13, 35-49. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbiphy.2023.133004

ReferencesCarlos, W.G., Dela Cruz, C.S., Cao, B., Pasnick, S. and Jamil, S. (2020) COVID-19 Disease Due to SARS-CoV-2 (Novel Coronavirus). American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 201, 7-8. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.2014P7Unal, M. and Irez, T. (2020) COVID 19 Disease Caused by Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). Asian Journal of Medicine and Health, 18, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajmah/2020/v18i430194Flor, L.S., Friedman, J., Spencer, C.N., Cagney, J., Arrieta, A., Herbert, M.E., Stein, C., Mullany, E.C., Hon, J., Patwardhan, V., et al. (2022) Quantifying the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Gender Equality on Health, Social, and Economic Indicators: A Comprehensive Review of Data from March, 2020, to September, 2021. The Lancet, 399, 2381-2397. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00008-3Shiels, M.S., Haque, A.T., de Gonz′alez, A.B. and Freedman, N.D. (2022) Leading Causes of Death in the US during the COVID-19 Pandemic, March 2020 to October 2021. JAMA Internal Medicine, 182, 883-886. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.2476Elo, I.T., Luck, A., Stokes, A.C., Hempstead, K., Xie, W.B. and Preston, S.H. (2022) Evaluation of Age Patterns of COVID-19 Mortality by Race and Ethnicity from March 2020 to October 2021 in the US. JAMA Network Open, 5, e2212686. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12686Aria, H., Mahmoodi, F., Ghaheh, H.S., Zare, H., Heiat, M., Bakherad, H., et al. (2022) Outlook of Therapeutic and Diagnostic Competency of Nanobodies against SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review. Analytical Biochemistry, 640, Article ID: 114546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2022.114546World Health Organization (2021) WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard with Vaccination Data. https://covid19.who.int/Our World in Data (2023) Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinationsKar, S., Devnath, P., Emran, T.B., Tallei, T.E., Mitra, S. and Dhama, K. (2022) Oral and Intranasal Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: Current Progress, Prospects, Advantages, and Challenges. Immunity, Inflammation and Disease, 10, e604. https://doi.org/10.1002/iid3.604Dhama, K., Dhawan, M., Tiwari, R., Emran, T.B., Mitra, S., Rabaan, A.A., Alhumaid, S., Al Alawi, Z. and Al Mutair, A. (2022) COVID-19 Intranasal Vaccines: Current Progress, Advantages, Prospects, and Challenges. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 18, e2045853. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2022.2045853Stander, J., Mbewana, S. and Meyers, A.E. (2022) Plantderived Human Vaccines: Recent Developments. BioDrugs, 36, 573-589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-022-00544-8Soleymani, S., Tavassoli, A. and Housaindokht, M.R. (2022) An Overview of Progress from Empirical to Rational Design in Modern Vaccine Development, with an Emphasis on Computational Tools and Immunoinformatics Approaches. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 140, Article ID: 105057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105057Cheng, M.H., Krieger, J.M., Banerjee, A., Xiang, Y.F., Kaynak, B., Shi, Y., Arditi, M. and Bahar, I. (2022) Impact of New Variants on SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity and Neutralization: A Molecular Assessment of the Alterations in the Spike-Host Protein Interactions. iScience, 25, Article ID:103939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.103939Tang, Q.L., Owens, R.J. and Naismith, J.H. (2021) Structural Biology of Nanobodies against the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2. Viruses, 13, Article 2214. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13112214Xia, X.H. (2021) Domains and Functions of Spike Protein in SARS-CoV-2 in the Context of Vaccine Design. Viruses, 13, Article 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13010109Tai, W.B., He, L., Zhang, X.J., Pu, J., Voronin, D., Jiang, S.B., Zhou, Y.S. and Du, L. (2020) Characterization of the Receptor-Binding Domain (RBD) of 2019 Novel Coronavirus: Implication for Development of RBD Protein as a Viral Attachment Inhibitor and Vaccine. Cellular & Molecular Immunology, 17, 613-620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41423-020-0400-4Xiang, Y.F., Nambulli, S., Xiao, Z.Y., Liu, H., Sang, Z., Duprex, W.P., Schneidman-Duhovny, D., Zhang, C. and Shi, Y. (2020) Versatile and Multivalent Nanobodies Efficiently Neutralize SARS-CoV-2. Science, 370, 1479-1484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe4747Pymm, P., Adair, A., Chan, L.J., Cooney, J.P., Mordant, F.L., Allison, C.C., Lopez, E., Haycroft, E.R., O’Neill, M.T., Tan, L.L., et al. (2021) Nanobody Cocktails Potently Neutralize SARS-CoV-2 D614G N501Y Variant and Protect Mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2101918118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101918118Pereira Júnior, M.L., Junior, R.T., Nze, G.D., Giozza, W.F. and Júnior, L.A. (2021) Evaluation of Peppermint Leaf Flavonoids as SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-Binding Domain Attachment Inhibitors to the Human ACE2 Receptor: A Molecular Docking Study. Open Journal of Biophysics, 12, 132-152. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbiphy.2022.122005Xiu, S.Y., Dick, A., Ju, H., Mirzaie, S., Abdi, F., Cocklin, S., Zhan, P. and Liu, X.Y. (2020) Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Entry: Current and Future Opportunities. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 63, 12256-12274. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c00502Rodriguez, C., Luque, N., Blanco, I., Sebastian, L., Barber`a, J.A., Peinado, V.I. and Tura-Ceide, O. (2021) Pulmonary Endothelial Dysfunction and Thrombotic Complications in Patients with COVID-19. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology, 64, 407-415. https://doi.org/10.1165/rcmb.2020-0359PSAstuti, I., et al. (2020) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): An Overview of Viral Structure and Host Response. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 14, 407-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.020Ma, C.L., Sacco, M.D., Hurst, B., Townsend, J.A. Hu, Y.M., Szeto, T., Zhang, X.J., Tarbet, B., Thomas Marty, M., Chen, Y., et al. (2020) Boceprevir, GC-376, and Calpain Inhibitors II, XII Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 Viral Replication by Targeting the Viral Main Protease. Cell Research, 30, 678-692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-020-0356-zFu, L.F., Ye, F., Feng, Y., Yu, F., Wang, Q.S., Wu, Y., Zhao, C., Sun, H., Huang, B.Y., Niu, P.H., et al. (2020) Both Boceprevir and GC376 Efficaciously Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 by Targeting Its Main Protease. Nature Communications, 11, Article No. 4417. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18233-xKim, S., Chen, J., Cheng, T.J., Gindulyte, A., He, J., He, S.Q., Li, Q.L., Shoemaker, B.A., Thiessen, P.A., Yu, B., et al. (2023) Pubchem 2023 Update. Nucleic Acids Research, 51, D1373-D1380. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac956Kochnev, Y., Hellemann, E., Cassidy, K.C. and Durrant, J.D. (2020) Webina: An Open-Source Library and Web App That Runs AutoDock Vina Entirely in the Web Browser. Bioinformatics, 36, 4513-4515. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa579Brooks, B.R., et al. (2009) CHARMM: The Biomolecular Simulation Program. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 30, 1545-1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21287Salentin, S., Schreiber, S., Haupt, V.J., Adasme, M.F. and Schroeder, M. (2015) Plip: Fully Automated Protein—Ligand Interaction Profiler. Nucleic Acids Research, 43, W443-W447. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv315Zhang, X.X., Chen, Z.W., Chen, D.C., Cui, H. and Tang, J. (2020) Adsorption Behaviour of SO2 and SOF2 Gas on RH-Doped BNNT: A DFT Study. Molecular Physics, 118, e1580394. https://doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2019.1580394Timsorn, K. and Wongchoosuk, C. (2020) Adsorption of NO2, HCN, HCHO and CO on Pristine and Amine Functionalized Boron Nitride Nanotubes by Self-Con-sistent Charge Density Functional Tight-Binding Method. Materials Research Express, 7, Article ID: 055005. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ab8b8bPeng, S., Cho, K., Qi, P.F. and Dai, H.J. (2004) Ab Initio Study of CNT NO2 Gas Sensor. Chemical Physics Letters, 387, 271-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2004.02.026Phillips, J.C., Zheng, G.B., Kumar, S. and Kale, L.V. (2002) NAMD: Biomolecular Simulation on Thousands of Processors. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing, Baltimore, 16-22 November 2002, 36. https://doi.org/10.1109/SC.2002.10019Klauda, J.B., Venable, R.M., Freites, J.A., O’Connor, J.W., Tobias, D.J., Mondragon-Ramirez, C., Vorobyov, I., MacKerell Jr, A.D. and Pastor, R.W. (2010) Update of the CHARMM All-Atom Additive Force Field for Lipids: Validation on Six Lipid Types. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 114, 7830-7843. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp101759qHumphrey, W., Dalke, A. and Schulten, K. (1996) VMD: Visual Molecular Dynamics. Journal of Molecular Graphics, 14, 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5Fukunishi, Y., Yamashita, Y., Mashimo, T. and Nakamura, H. (2018) Prediction of Protein-Compound Binding Energies from Known Activity Data: Docking-Score-Based Method and Its Applications. Molecular Informatics, 37, Article ID: 1700120. https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201700120Guler, H.I., Tatar, G., Yildiz, O., Belduz, A.O. and Kolayli, S. (2021) Investigation of Potential Inhibitor Properties of Ethanolic Propolis Extracts against ACE-II Receptors for COVID-19 Treatment by Molecular Docking Study. Archives of Microbiology, 203, 3557-3564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-021-02351-1Khayrani, A.C., Irdiani, R., Aditama, R., Pratami, D.K., Lischer, K., Ansari, M.J., Chinnathambi, A., Ali Alharbi, S., Almoallim, H.S. and Sahlan, M. (2021) Evaluating the Potency of Sulawesi Propolis Compounds as ACE-2 Inhibitors through Molecular Docking for COVID-19 Drug Discovery Preliminary Study. Journal of King Saud University-Science, 33, Article ID: 101297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101297Towler, P., Staker, B., Prasad, S.G., Menon, S., Tang, J., Parsons, T., Ryan, D., Fisher, M., Williams, D., Dales, N.A., et al. (2004) ACE2 X-Ray Structures Reveal a Large Hinge-Bending Motion Important for Inhibitor Binding and Catalysis. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 279, 17996-18007. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M311191200