ArticleRSC advances2026
Exploring the diverse binding ability of SARS-CoV-2 variant RBDs to different antibody classes: a computational study.
Article in RSC advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is highly immunogenic and structurally dynamic, resulting from continuous evolution and mutations that reshape its antigenic landscape. This study aims to investigate the binding profile between the RBD and four neutralizing antibodies, including class 1 (VIR-7229, S2E12, and OMI-42), class 2 (ZCB11), class 3 (S309), and class 4 (SA55), using computational approaches. These six RBD complexes were subjected to molecular dynamics simulation, and the binding free energy was estimated using the MM-PBSA method. Our results revealed that ZCB11 and S2E12 greatly weakened the binding to Omicron subvariants XBB.1.5, BA.2.86, KP.3, and MV.1, while OMI-42 was evaded by BA.2.86, KP.3, and MV.1. In addition, S309 exhibited a reduced binding affinity to the RBDs of XBB.1.5, BA.2.86, KP.3, and MV.1. Interestingly, glycans contribute approximately 33% to the interface interactions in variants with a single glycan at N343, increasing to 50% with a second glycan at N354. This finding indicates that dual glycans play a crucial role in determining the stability of the antibody-RBD complex. In contrast, SA55 and VIR-7229 demonstrated robust binding across all the studied variants. The viral evolution exhibits a two-tiered strategy to evade antibodies while enhancing ACE2 binding: first, charge-increasing mutations such as Q498R improve ACE2 affinity and repel antibodies like S2E12 and ZCB11; second, neutral mutations, such as F456L/V in KP.3 and MV.1, further weaken antibody binding, as observed in OMI-42. Our results support the charge-centric hypothesis that, although van der Waals interactions are favorable and nearly constant for all variants of a given class of antibodies, electrical interactions determine binding affinity as they vary from variant to variant.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.