Sequence homology between human PARP14 and the SARS-CoV-2 ADP ribose 1’-phosphatase
Authors: Thomas E Webb
Ramy Saad
Journal: Immunology letters (2020)
Discipline: IMMUNOLOGY
Keywords: amino acid sequence homology; ADP-ribose binding sites; PARP14; SARS-CoV-2 ADRP; bat species
Affiliations: Royal Sussex County Hospital, Barry Building, Eastern Rd, Brighton, BN2 5BE, United Kingdom.

Abstract:  •There is amino acid sequence homology between the ADP-ribose binding sites of human PARP14 and SARS-CoV-2 ADRP.•This homology is even more pronounced in bat species.•The model proposed highlights the potential of the PARP axis to yield druggable targets for the treatment of COVID-19. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 This paper should be retracted. The authors presents a result with a protein sequence from SARS-CoV and they show it as being a sequence from SARS-CoV-2. It leaves the impression that no one at this Journal analysed the single figure (that is actually a print screen from the NCBI Blast page result) with the single result presented on it. In addition: 1) The authors fail to give the correct name of the SARS-CoV-2 domain; 2) The authors fail to discuss the current knowledge of what this domain is doing. 3) The authors fail to explain how a phosphatase activity would counteract an ADP-ribose mediated signaling, as stated on the fifth paragraph. After all, how is it possible that a phosphatase cleaves an ADP-ribose (as it is claimed on Figure 2)? Removing an ADP-ribose is a biochemical process that is completely different from removing a phosphate. 4) The authors claim that both proteins share a  32% of homology . Homology means that two species share a common ancestor. There isn t a concept of  percentage of common ancestry . Given any two species they share a common ancestor or not. Authors have mistaken a percentage of amino acid identity with  a percentage of homology . 5) The authors claim that  This supports a hypothesis that Coronaviridae ADRP enzymes may have coevolved to counter the ADP-ribosylation activity of regulatory proteins such as PARP14 as they both bind ADP-ribose in the same context [6]. Reference 6 is by Egloff et al, that studied viral proteins, including SARS-CoV. Therefore, in Reference 6 there is no data showing that PARP14 binds ADP-Ribose, there is no data that SARS-CoV-2 binds ADP-Ribose and there is no data whatsoever that this supposedly binding by both proteins occurs  in the same context . It is relevant to note that SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 proteins are different (about 30% of difference in amino acid residues in some regions) and thus it is not possible to assume that what is happening in SARS-CoV will necessarily happen with SARS-CoV-2. There are significant flaws on this text regarding the fields of Biochemistry, Phylogeny and Evolution and, specifically, about what is known regarding ADP-ribose signalling in viral infections and the response elicited by the host. The flaws present in this text are serious. I wouldn t expect any author to take Science in such a reckless way, especially when Science is most needed in an unprecedented health crisis, at least in the last 100 years. Such flaws might bring huge consequences for many readers as this will confound them. After all, we re dealing with a new disease that is bringing suffering and deaths for many people in the World. ,