Computational Modeling of Avian Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin–Receptor Interactions: Implications for Host Tropism

Introduction

The host tropism of avian influenza A virus is governed primarily by the binding specificity of the viral hemagglutinin (HA) glycoprotein to sialic acid receptors on host cell surfaces [1, 2]. Avian influenza viruses typically exhibit preferential binding to α2,3‑linked sialic acids (avian‑type receptors), whereas human‑adapted influenza viruses bind preferentially to α2,6‑linked sialic acids (human‑type receptors) [1, 2]. The switch from avian to human receptor specificity is a critical molecular determinant for zoonotic transmission and pandemic potential [1, 3]. Computational modeling approaches, including molecular docking, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and free energy calculations, have become indispensable tools for dissecting the atomic‑level interactions between HA and its glycan receptors and for predicting how specific mutations alter receptor binding preferences [4, 5, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. This article reviews the computational methodologies applied to avian influenza HA–receptor interactions, highlighting key mutations that facilitate host switching and discussing the implications for veterinary surveillance and risk assessment. For a broader overview of HA binding specificity analysis, readers are directed to the companion article Computational Analysis of Avian Influenza Hemagglutinin Receptor Binding Specificity: Implications for Cross-Species Transmission.

Molecular Docking of Hemagglutinin with Sialic Acid Receptors

Molecular docking is a widely used computational technique that predicts the preferred orientation of a ligand (e.g., a sialic acid analog) within the HA receptor‑binding site and estimates binding affinity [4, 12, 13, 14, 2, 8]. Docking simulations typically employ rigid‑receptor or flexible‑ligand algorithms to sample conformational space and score complexes [4, 2]. For avian influenza HA subtypes such as H5, H7, and H9, docking calculations have been used to compare binding energies for α2,3‑ and α2,6‑linked sialosides [4, 2, 8]. For instance, comparative docking studies of H9N2 HA demonstrated that avian‑origin viruses display higher docking scores with α2,3‑sialic acid, while human‑adapted variants show a shift toward α2,6‑linked glycans [2]. Similarly, docking of H5N1 HA with fluorinated sialic acid inhibitors revealed favorable interactions within the binding pocket, supporting the design of receptor‑mimetic antiviral compounds [8].

A key advantage of docking is its computational efficiency, which allows large‑scale screening of HA variants [4, 5, 3]. Large‑scale computational modelling of H5 influenza variants against neutralizing antibodies has also been performed, using docking to evaluate antibody escape and receptor binding alterations [5]. In these studies, thousands of HA1 sequences were docked against representative antibodies, and binding scores were correlated with antigenic drift [5]. The results underscore how docking can be used to monitor emerging variants with altered receptor interactions, a capability directly relevant to veterinary diagnostics and vaccine seed strain selection [5].

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of HA–Receptor Complexes

Molecular dynamics simulations provide a more detailed, time‑resolved view of HA–receptor interactions by modeling atomic motions under physiological conditions [3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. MD simulations have been applied to investigate the conformational dynamics of HA domains, the stability of receptor binding, and the effect of mutations on binding free energies [3, 6, 9]. For H5N1 HA, simulations of the globular head domain in complex with sialic acid and fluorinated sialic acid revealed that specific hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic contacts govern receptor specificity [8, 10]. The simulations showed that the N‑linked glycosylation pattern near the receptor‑binding site can influence access to α2,6‑linked receptors [10].

For H7N9 HA, MD simulations have been used to study the impact of neuraminidase resistance mutations (e.g., R292K and E119V) on drug binding, and similar methodology has been extended to HA–receptor complexes [6, 7, 15]. Simulations of the HA2 domain at low pH have elucidated the mechanism of membrane fusion and the role of conserved residues in the fusion peptide [9]. Furthermore, MD studies on point mutations in H5 HA, such as Q226L and G228S (H3 numbering), have demonstrated how single amino acid changes shift the binding preference from α2,3‑ to α2,6‑linked receptors [3]. These mutations are commonly observed in avian‑to‑mammalian adaptation; their effect on binding free energy can be quantified using MM‑GBSA or MM‑PBSA approaches [3, 6].

The use of MD simulations has also been critical in understanding the structural basis for the increased receptor binding breadth observed in dairy cow‑associated H5N1 viruses. A single mutation in the HA of these viruses was shown via MD and free energy calculations to broaden the repertoire of sialic acid linkages that can be bound, potentially facilitating transmission among cattle and to humans [1]. This finding highlights the power of MD to predict emerging risks before widespread viral circulation.

Free Energy Calculations and Binding Affinity Predictions

Quantifying the binding affinity between HA and sialic acid receptors is essential for predicting host tropism. Free energy perturbation (FEP) and end‑point methods such as MM‑GBSA and MM‑PBSA are commonly employed [3, 6, 7, 8, 10]. These calculations decompose the binding free energy into contributions from van der Waals interactions, electrostatic interactions, and solvation effects [3]. For H5N1 HA, systematic free energy calculations have shown that the Q226L mutation reduces the energetic cost of binding α2,6‑sialic acid by improving complementarity of the hydrophobic patch [3]. Similarly, for H7N9 HA, MM‑GBSA analyses of peramivir‑resistant mutants have provided insights into how drug‑resistance mutations alter the binding landscape [6, 7].

Free energy calculations are also used to evaluate the inhibitory potential of small molecules and peptides targeting HA. For example, the binding affinity of antiviral hexapeptides against H9N2 HA was ranked using docking and MM‑GBSA, identifying candidates that block viral attachment to epithelial cells [13]. Sialic acid inhibitors designed as HA fusion blockers have been characterized by free energy methods, allowing optimization of their binding poses [14]. These computational screens can reduce the need for extensive wet‑laboratory testing and accelerate the development of therapeutic interventions for avian influenza in poultry [13, 14].

Key Mutations Enabling Host Switching

Several HA mutations have been identified through computational and experimental studies as critical for the switch from avian‑type to mammalian‑type receptor specificity. The table below summarizes the most significant mutations discussed in the referenced literature.

The N156K mutation in H1N1pdm09 HA is an example of convergent evolution that reduces glycosylation at the antigenic site, affecting both antibody recognition and potentially receptor binding dynamics [16]. Although this mutation was documented in H1N1, similar patterns of glycosite loss have been observed in avian H5 and H7 subtypes during adaptation to mammals [16, 17, 5]. The mutation in dairy cow‑associated H5N1 HA (a single residue change) broadened binding to include both α2,3‑ and α2,6‑linked receptors, as demonstrated by a combination of X‑ray crystallography, glycan microarray, and MD simulations [1]. This finding is particularly concerning for the veterinary community because H5N1 viruses in cattle may acquire enhanced transmissibility to other mammals, including poultry [1].

Computational Workflow for HA–Receptor Interaction Analysis

The computational analysis of HA–receptor interactions typically follows a multi‑step pipeline. A representative workflow is depicted in the Mermaid diagram below.

flowchart TD
    A[HA sequence / structure from database], > B{Homology modeling or X‑ray/Cryo‑EM structure}
    B, > C[Receptor binding site identification]
    C, > D[Preparation of sialic acid glycan library (α2,3 and α2,6)]
    D, > E[Molecular docking of glycans to HA]
    E, > F[Scoring and ranking of complexes]
    F, > G[Selection of top poses for MD simulation]
    G, > H[MD simulation of HA–glycan complex (explicit solvent)]
    H, > I[Trajectory analysis: RMSD, RMSF, hydrogen bonding]
    I, > J[Binding free energy calculation (MM‑GBSA / MM‑PBSA)]
    J, > K{Comparison of binding energies between avian and mammalian glycan}
    K, > L[Prediction of receptor preference and host tropism]
    L, > M[Validation with experimental data (glycan array, mutagenesis)]

This workflow integrates multiple computational tools and can be applied to any avian HA subtype. The quality of the starting structure is critical; high‑resolution X‑ray or cryo‑EM structures, or reliable homology models, form the foundation [5, 3, 9, 18]. For emerging subtypes where structures are unavailable, homology modeling based on closely related HA templates is often employed [4, 8]. Interactive visualization of HA structures and receptor‑binding sites can be explored through the 3D Protein Viewer (linked to the article’s accompanying resource).

Implications for Host Tropism and Zoonotic Risk Prediction

Computational modeling has direct implications for veterinary surveillance and pandemic preparedness. By systematically evaluating the receptor binding preferences of circulating avian influenza strains, researchers can identify viruses with mutations that confer increased affinity for human‑type receptors [1, 2]. Such viruses pose a higher risk of zoonotic transmission and should be prioritized for enhanced surveillance in poultry and wild birds [1]. For example, the identification of the broadened receptor binding in dairy cow‑associated H5N1 triggered immediate risk assessments and highlighted the need for monitoring cattle populations [1]. Similarly, computational studies of H9N2 HA binding have shown that some avian strains already possess partial affinity for α2,6‑linked receptors, suggesting a lower barrier for human adaptation [2].

Integrating computational predictions with field surveillance data can improve early warning systems. The companion article Computational Prediction of Host Tropism and Receptor Binding Dynamics in Emerging Zoonotic Coronaviruses discusses analogous approaches for coronaviruses, illustrating the cross‑applicability of these methods. Moreover, machine learning frameworks trained on MD‑derived features can further enhance prediction accuracy [5, 3].

Limitations and Future Directions

While computational modeling provides valuable insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. Docking accuracy depends on the correct representation of glycan flexibility and environmental pH [8, 9]. MD simulations are computationally intensive, limiting the number of mutations that can be explored simultaneously [3]. Experimental validation through glycan microarrays, surface plasmon resonance, or hemagglutination assays remains essential to confirm predictions [1, 2]. Recent advances in deep learning, such as AlphaFold2, have improved structure prediction of HA and its complexes, which can be leveraged for future modeling efforts [5]. The integration of multiscale simulations (from quantum mechanics to coarse‑grained models) will further refine our understanding of HA–receptor interactions.

Conclusions

Computational modeling of avian influenza virus hemagglutinin–receptor interactions has become a cornerstone of host tropism research. Molecular docking, MD simulations, and free energy calculations allow researchers to dissect the atomic determinants of receptor specificity, identify key mutations that enable mammalian adaptation, and predict zoonotic risk. The application of these methods to H5N1, H7N9, and H9N2 subtypes has revealed critical insights, such as the role of Q226L and G228S in receptor switching and the recent broadening of receptor binding in dairy cow‑associated H5N1 [1, 3, 2]. Continued integration of computational predictions with veterinary surveillance will be crucial for early detection of viruses with pandemic potential.

References

[1] Good MR, Fernández-Quintero ML, Ji W, et al. A single mutation in dairy cow-associated H5N1 viruses increases receptor binding breadth. Nat Commun. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39737954/

[2] Xu H, Qian J, Song Y, et al. The adaptability of H9N2 avian influenza A virus to humans: A comparative docking simulation study. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32819606/

[3] Ngo QB, Juffer AH. Theoretical Investigations of a point mutation affecting H5 Hemagglutinin's receptor binding preference. Comput Biol Chem. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39216409/

[4] Khan MY, Shah AU, Duraisamy N, et al. Repurposing of Some Nucleoside Analogs Targeting Some Key Proteins of the Avian H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b to Combat the Circulating HPAI in Birds: An In Silico Approach. Viruses. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40733589/

[5] Ford CT, Yasa S, Obeid K, et al. Large-scale computational modelling of H5 influenza variants against HA1-neutralising antibodies. EBioMedicine. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40101386/

[6] Mtambo SE, Ugbaja SC, Kumalo HM. Impact of the R292K Mutation on Influenza A (H7N9) Virus Resistance towards Peramivir: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective. Molecules. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35268746/

[7] Mtambo SE, Ugbaja SC, Mushebenge AG, et al. Intermolecular Mechanism and Dynamic Investigation of Avian Influenza H7N9 Virus' Susceptibility to E119V-Substituted Peramivir-Neuraminidase Complex. Molecules. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35268741/

[8] Jeyaram RA, Radha CA, Gromiha MM, et al. Design of fluorinated sialic acid analog inhibitor to H5 hemagglutinin of H5N1 influenza virus through molecular dynamics simulation study. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31594458/

[9] Kannan S, Shankar R, Kolandaivel P. Insights into structural and inhibitory mechanisms of low pH-induced conformational change of influenza HA2 protein: a computational approach. J Mol Model. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30904969/

[10] Jeyaram RA, Priyadarzini TRK, Anu Radha C, et al. Molecular dynamics simulation studies on influenza A virus H5N1 complexed with sialic acid and fluorinated sialic acid. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30686127/

[11] Perrier A, Eluard M, Petitjean M, et al. In Silico Design of New Inhibitors Against Hemagglutinin of Influenza. J Phys Chem B. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30590925/ *** 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.

[12] Kim J, Lim JW, Kim HO, et al. Hemagglutinin docking analysis-based visual detection of antiviral therapeutic efficacy of umifenovir against influenza virus. Biosens Bioelectron. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40639140/

[13] Arbi M, Larbi I, Nsiri J, et al. Inhibition of avian influenza virus H9N2 infection by antiviral hexapeptides that target viral attachment to epithelial cells. Virus Res. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35306102/

[14] Chang YJ, Yeh CY, Cheng JC, et al. Potent sialic acid inhibitors that target influenza A virus hemagglutinin. Sci Rep. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33883588/

[15] Podshivalov DD, Kirilin EM, Konnov SI, et al. Structural Organization and Dynamic Characteristics of the Binding Site for Conformational Rearrangement Inhibitors in Hemagglutinins from H3N2 and H7N9 Influenza Viruses. Biochemistry (Mosc). 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32569557/

[16] Tian Y, Jiang D, Ma W, et al. Convergent evolution of the N156K mutation in A(H1N1)pdm09 hemagglutinin contributes to antigenic drift and cluster transition. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42267384/

[17] Rimaux S, Valdivia A, Martín-López J, et al. N-[(Thiophen-3-yl)methyl]benzamides as Fusion Inhibitors of Influenza Virus Targeting H1 and H5 Hemagglutinins. J Med Chem. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40880513/

[18] Turner HL, Pallesen J, Lang S, et al. Potent anti-influenza H7 human monoclonal antibody induces separation of hemagglutinin receptor-binding head domains. PLoS Biol. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30716060/

[19] He W, Dou Y, Ji H, et al. [Transcriptomics](/knowledge/bioinformatics/modern-transcriptomics-bulk-single-cell-spatial 2) and network pharmacology reveal that baicalin alleviates acute lung injury induced by H1N1 via targeting STAT1. Arch Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41989578/

[20] Khursheed S, Ahmed MZ, Khursheed S, et al. Bioinformatics-guided vaccine targeting the hemagglutinin protein of avian influenza virus. Mol Genet Genomics. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41686297/

[21] Hua L, Wang M, Gao Q, et al. Trivalent triterpenoids block SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A virus infection by directly targeting homotrimeric envelope proteins. Eur J Med Chem. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41547242/

[22] Adegbaju MS, Owo-Odusi O, Wirtz ET, et al. Structural analysis of antigenic variation and adaptive evolution of the H5N1 neuraminidase gene. PLoS Comput Biol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41544104/

[23] Tare DS, Pawar SD, Shil P, et al. Structural and functional characterization of avian influenza H9N2 virus neuraminidase with a combination of five novel mutations. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38750923/

[24] Dashti F, Raisi A, Pourali G, et al. A computational approach to design a multiepitope vaccine against H5N1 virus. Virol J. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38509569/

[25] Zhao J, Zhu Y, Hu J, et al. [Characterization of a monoclonal antibody against the hemagglutinin stem of H7N9 subtype avian influenza virus]. Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35142127/

[26] Tarrahimofrad H, Rahimnahal S, Zamani J, et al. Designing a multi-epitope vaccine to provoke the robust immune response against influenza A H7N9. Sci Rep. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34966175/

[27] Du R, Cheng H, Cui Q, et al. Identification of a novel inhibitor targeting influenza A virus group 2 hemagglutinins. Antiviral Res. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33428962/

[28] Lee BW, Ha TKQ, Cho HM, et al. Antiviral activity of furanocoumarins isolated from Angelica dahurica against influenza a viruses H1N1 and H9N2. J Ethnopharmacol. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32389854/

[29] Ye M, Liao Y, Wu L, et al. An Oleanolic Acid Derivative Inhibits Hemagglutinin-Mediated Entry of Influenza A Virus. Viruses. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32085430/

[30] Gaisina IN, Peet NP, Cheng H, et al. Optimization of 4-Aminopiperidines as Inhibitors of Influenza A Viral Entry That Are Synergistic with Oseltamivir. J Med Chem. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32069052/

[31] Cihan-Üstündağ G, Zopun M, Vanderlinden E, et al. Superior inhibition of influenza virus hemagglutinin-mediated fusion by indole-substituted spirothiazolidinones. Bioorg Med Chem. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31753804/

[32] Göktaş F, Özbil M, Cesur N, et al. Novel N-(1-thia-4-azaspiro[4.5]decan-4-yl)carboxamide derivatives as potent and selective influenza virus fusion inhibitors. Arch Pharm (Weinheim). 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31531897/

[33] Li M, Chen L, Wang Q, et al. A cross-reactive human monoclonal antibody targets the conserved H7 antigenic site A from fifth wave H7N9-infected humans. Antiviral Res. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31299269/

[34] Zhang W, Chen ST, He QY, et al. Asprellcosides B of Ilex asprella Inhibits Influenza A Virus Infection by Blocking the Hemagglutinin-Mediated Membrane Fusion. Front Microbiol. 2018. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30728818/