Computational Prediction and Design of Broadly Neutralizing Antibodies Against Influenza Hemagglutinin

Introduction

Influenza A and B viruses remain a major cause of respiratory disease in avian, swine, equine, and companion animal populations. The hemagglutinin (HA) glycoprotein is the primary target of neutralizing antibodies, yet its antigenic diversity, driven by continuous drift and shift, allows viral escape from strain-specific immunity [1, 2]. Broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) that recognize conserved epitopes on the HA stem or the receptor-binding site (RBS) offer a promising avenue for universal vaccine design and passive immunotherapy in veterinary medicine [3, 4]. Computational approaches now play a central role in accelerating the discovery and optimization of such bnAbs by predicting antibody–antigen interactions at atomic resolution and by designing novel paratopes with enhanced breadth [5, 6].

This article reviews the computational pipeline for bnAb prediction and design, with emphasis on structural modeling, molecular docking, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and machine learning (ML)-based epitope identification. We highlight case studies of known bnAbs (e.g., CR6261, FI6v3) and their structural analogues in animal influenza viruses, and discuss how structure-based design has improved cross-reactivity. The role of three-dimensional (3D) protein viewers in visualizing HA trimer–antibody complexes is also examined.

Structural Biology of Hemagglutinin and Broadly Neutralizing Epitopes

The HA trimer consists of a globular head domain (HA1) and a stem domain (HA2) that undergoes a large conformational change during membrane fusion. The head domain contains the RBS and is the immunodominant region, but it is highly variable. In contrast, the stem region is more conserved across subtypes and is the target of many bnAbs [7, 1]. The stem epitope recognized by bnAbs such as CR6261 and FI6v3 comprises a hydrophobic groove that binds the heavy chain complementarity-determining region (CDR) H3, while the light chain contacts the membrane-proximal region [7, 4]. In veterinary species, similar stem-targeting antibodies have been isolated from pigs [8] and chickens [9]. For example, porcine monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against H3, H5, and H7 HAs recognize the stem and a site near the egg-adapted mutation in H3 [8]. Nanobodies targeting the HA1 domain of H5 avian influenza virus also show broad neutralization [9].

The structural boundaries of cross-reactive antibody interactions have been mapped for H3 HAs using high-resolution crystallography and escape mutagenesis [10]. The vestigial esterase domain of H9N2 HA contains unique conserved epitopes that are recognized by neutralizing antibodies [11]. Recently, a class of antibodies that bind the HA head at its interface with the stem has been described, showing broad binding across group 1 and 2 HAs [12].

Computational Structural Modeling of HA–Antibody Complexes

Accurate 3D structures of HA–antibody complexes are essential for understanding the molecular basis of neutralization and for guiding rational design. Computational structural prediction methods, such as homology modeling, threading, and deep learning approaches (e.g., AlphaFold2), are routinely employed to generate models of HA trimers and antibody variable domains [13]. The 3D Protein Viewer tool (see related article: AlphaFold Structure Prediction Server) allows interactive visualization of these models, enabling the identification of key contact residues and hydrogen bond networks.

For known bnAbs, the crystal structures of CR6261 and FI6v3 bound to HA have been solved. CR6261 recognizes a conserved stem epitope via its heavy chain, while FI6v3 uses both heavy and light chains to contact the stem [7, 4]. Computational modeling of these complexes has revealed that the binding energy is dominated by hydrophobic interactions and a few polar contacts [13]. In the context of veterinary influenza, structural models of H5 and H7 HA–antibody complexes have been built using the same approach [8, 14].

Molecular Docking for Predicting Antibody–Antigen Interactions

Molecular docking algorithms predict the binding pose of an antibody paratope onto an antigen epitope. Rigid-body docking, such as ZDOCK and ClusPro, is often used as a first step, followed by refinement with flexible docking (e.g., RosettaDock) [15]. Docking can be used to screen large panels of antibody sequences against a target HA to identify potential bnAbs [16]. For example, small molecule-constrained bicyclic peptides that mimic the paratope of bnAbs have been designed as inhibitors of group 1 and 2 influenza A HAs [16]. Docking simulations of these peptides onto the stem groove recapitulated the binding mode of the parent antibody.

Docking also helps in assessing the impact of HA mutations on antibody binding. By docking known bnAbs to mutant HA structures, one can predict escape mutations and guide the design of antibodies that are resilient to antigenic drift [10, 13]. This approach is particularly valuable for veterinary surveillance, as it allows rapid evaluation of emerging field strains.

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Binding Stability

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations provide a dynamic view of the HA–antibody interface, revealing binding kinetics, allosteric effects, and the role of water molecules. All-atom explicit-solvent MD simulations (e.g., using GROMACS or AMBER) are typically run for 100–500 ns to assess the stability of the complex [13]. Key metrics include root-mean-square deviation (RMSD), root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF), and binding free energy calculated via MM-PBSA or MM-GBSA [13].

MD simulations have been used to dissect the mechanism of antibody inhibition of influenza entry, revealing unexpected heterogeneity in the binding modes of different bnAbs [13]. For H3 HA, simulations showed that bnAbs require a specific orientation to sterically hinder the pH-induced conformational change of HA2 [13]. In the case of FI6v3, MD simulations demonstrated that the antibody binds to a pre-fusion stabilized epitope and that mutations in the stem can disrupt the hydrophobic core [17]. Similarly, the computational design of nanocage-displayed HA stem antigens has been guided by MD simulations to ensure that the epitope is presented in a conformation compatible with bnAb binding [18, 19].

Machine Learning Approaches for Epitope Prediction and Antibody Design

Machine learning (ML) has revolutionized the prediction of epitopes and the design of antibody sequences. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and graph neural networks (GNNs) can be trained on structural data to predict antigenic regions that are both conserved and accessible to antibodies [15, 2]. For example, a phenomenological model of antibody response based on vaccine strain composition used ML to predict the likelihood of eliciting bnAbs [15].

Deep learning models, such as protein language models, can generate novel antibody sequences that are predicted to bind the target epitope. These sequences can then be screened computationally using docking and MD [5]. The concept of computationally optimized broadly reactive antigens (COBRAs) has been applied to H1, H3, and influenza B HA, where ML-driven optimization of the HA sequence leads to improved cross-neutralization [20, 21, 22]. In the case of H5 influenza, an algorithm-optimized mRNA vaccine induced broad immune responses in poultry [23]. A similar approach was used to design a pan-H7 vaccine using nanocage display [18].

Case Studies: CR6261, FI6v3, and Veterinary Analogues

CR6261 is a human bnAb that neutralizes group 1 influenza A viruses (including H1, H5, H9) by binding to the stem. Its structure has been extensively studied, and computational redesign of its paratope has led to variants with improved affinity and breadth [7, 4]. FI6v3 is a human bnAb that neutralizes both group 1 and group 2 influenza A viruses. Its ability to recognize a conserved stem epitope across subtypes has been attributed to its long CDR H3 loop, which inserts into a hydrophobic pocket [4]. In veterinary medicine, analogous bnAbs have been isolated from pigs (porcine mAbs targeting H3, H5, H7) [8] and from chickens (nanobodies against H5) [9]. Computational modeling of these antibodies has shown that they employ similar binding modes, suggesting that the stem epitope is universally conserved across mammalian and avian influenza A viruses [8, 9].

For influenza B viruses, bnAbs have been isolated from vaccinated humans and ferrets that recognize the HA stem of both B/Victoria and B/Yamagata lineages [24]. Computational design of retooled HA proteins to redirect neutralizing antibodies against B/Victoria strains has been reported [25]. The immunofocusing of the antibody response to the stem is a key strategy for universal influenza B vaccines [25, 22].

Workflow for Computational bnAb Design

The following Mermaid diagram outlines the integrated computational pipeline for predicting and designing bnAbs against HA.

flowchart TD
  A[HA Sequence Data], > B[Structure Prediction (AlphaFold2, Homology Modeling)]
  B, > C[Epitope Identification (Conservation, Accessibility, ML)]
  C, > D[Antibody Library Generation (naive, immune, synthetic)]
  D, > E[Molecular Docking (ZDOCK, RosettaDock)]
  E, > F[Binding Affinity Scoring (MM-PBSA, Deep Learning)]
  F, > G[Molecular Dynamics Simulations (Stability, Kinetics)]
  G, > H[Selection of Lead Candidates]
  H, > I[Experimental Validation (ELISA, Pseudovirus Neutralization)]
  I, > J[Iterative Optimization (Affinity Maturation, Breadth)]
  J, > C

Role of 3D Protein Visualization in Antibody Design

The 3D Protein Viewer (see related article: Computational Visualization of Single-Point Mutations on Protein 3D Structures) is an indispensable tool for inspecting HA–antibody interfaces. It allows users to rotate the trimer, highlight CDR loops, and measure atomic distances. For example, visualization of the CR6261–H5 HA complex reveals that the heavy chain CDR H3 inserts into a hydrophobic pocket at the stem, while the light chain contacts the HA1 globular domain [7]. Similarly, the FI6v3–H3 HA complex shows a more extended interface involving both heavy and light chains [4]. These visualizations guide the design of paratope modifications, such as the introduction of point mutations to enhance binding affinity.

Computational Design of Epitope-Focused Immunogens

Beyond direct antibody design, computational methods are used to engineer immunogens that elicit bnAbs. The concept of epitope-focused vaccine design involves presenting a conserved epitope (e.g., the stem) in a scaffold that refocuses the immune response away from the variable head [26, 6]. For example, computationally designed stem epitope mimetics have been shown to elicit broadly reactive antibodies in animal models [5]. The reorientation of the antigen to expose the stem epitope has been achieved using nanocage display systems [18, 19, 27]. In the case of canine influenza, computational design of peptide inhibitors targeting HA has been explored (see related article: Computational Design of Peptide Inhibitors Targeting the Hemagglutinin of Canine Influenza Virus).

Integration with Machine Learning for Antigenic Drift Prediction

Machine learning models trained on deep mutational scanning (DMS) data can predict how HA mutations affect antibody binding. This is crucial for anticipating the emergence of escape variants in veterinary settings (see related article: Machine Learning-Driven Prediction of Antigenic Drift in Influenza A Hemagglutinin Using Structural Dynamics and Sequence Surveillance). For example, DMS of H3 HA identified residues that, when mutated, reduce binding of stem-targeting bnAbs [10]. These data can be fed into ML models to predict the future antigenic drift of field strains [13]. The same approach has been applied to H5 HA for avian influenza surveillance [23, 18].

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite progress, several challenges remain. First, the computational prediction of antibody–antigen binding affinity is still not perfectly accurate; experimental validation remains essential [15, 13]. Second, the breadth of bnAbs is often limited by the glycan shield on HA, which can sterically block access to conserved epitopes [12]. Glycan shield engineering (see related article: Glycan Shield Engineering and the Computational Prediction of Immune Escape in Enveloped Viruses) is a computational strategy to remove glycosylation sites that mask epitopes, thereby enhancing the immunogenicity of the stem [12]. Third, the induction of bnAbs through vaccination in animals is influenced by pre-existing immunity and Fc profiles, which can be modeled computationally [28, 29]. The use of chimeric HA proteins that combine stem and head domains from different subtypes has been shown to broaden the antibody response in pigs and ferrets [30, 31].

Finally, the role of sex as a biological variable in antibody breadth has been recognized [32]. Female animals often mount more robust bnAb responses, and computational models must account for this immunological dimorphism [32].

Conclusion

Computational prediction and design of broadly neutralizing antibodies against influenza hemagglutinin have matured into a powerful toolkit for veterinary virology. Structural modeling, molecular docking, MD simulations, and machine learning collectively enable the rapid identification of conserved epitopes and the generation of antibody variants with enhanced cross-reactivity. The case studies of CR6261, FI6v3, and their veterinary analogues demonstrate that the stem epitope is a conserved Achilles' heel of influenza A viruses across species. Continued integration of computational and experimental approaches will accelerate the development of universal influenza vaccines and immunotherapeutics for animal health.

References

[1] Mahrous NN, Alhumaidan OS, Alkhoshaiban AS et al. Broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against influenza A viruses: current insights and future directions. Front Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41602762/

[2] Lim CML, Komarasamy TV, Adnan NAAB et al. Recent Advances, Approaches and Challenges in the Development of Universal Influenza Vaccines. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38513364/

[3] Ikrar T, Muchsin W, Sophian A. Beyond strain-specific immunity: Conserved antigenic targets, emerging platforms, and translational challenges in universal influenza and pan-coronavirus vaccine development. J Virol Methods. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42324038/

[4] Sun X, Ma H, Wang X et al. Broadly neutralizing antibodies to combat influenza virus infection. Antiviral Res. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38145757/

[5] Wehrle S, Scheck A, Reusch L et al. Computationally designed stem-epitope mimetics elicit broadly reactive antibodies. bioRxiv. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40568086/

[6] Xu D, Li C, Utz A et al. Designing epitope-focused vaccines via antigen reorientation. bioRxiv. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36597536/

[7] Lv H, Huan YW, Pholcharee T et al. Structural basis for distinct protective mechanisms of IGHV3-23 antibodies targeting influenza hemagglutinin stem. Nat Commun. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42331825/

[8] Cayol T, Villanueva-Hernández S, Briggs E et al. Porcine influenza mAbs to H3, H5, and H7 hemagglutinins recognize H3 egg adapted site and target the HA stem. Discov Immunol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41873331/

[9] Xu S, Liu Y, Luo C et al. Identification and characterization of a broadly neutralizing and protective nanobody against the HA1 domain of H5 avian influenza virus hemagglutinin. J Virol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40192291/

[10] Dzimianski JV, Nagashima KA, Cruz JM et al. Assessing the structural boundaries of broadly reactive antibody interactions with diverse H3 influenza hemagglutinin proteins. J Virol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40810533/

[11] Huang X, Yin G, Cai Y et al. Identification of Unique and Conserved Neutralizing Epitopes of Vestigial Esterase Domain in HA Protein of the H9N2 Subtype of Avian Influenza Virus. Viruses. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36560743/

[12] Simmons HC, Finney J, Kotaki R et al. A protective and broadly binding antibody class engages the influenza virus hemagglutinin head at its stem interface. mBio. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40391889/

[13] Sengar A, Cervantes M, Kasson PM. Mechanistic dissection of antibody inhibition of influenza entry yields unexpected heterogeneity. Biophys J. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36262043/

[14] Gilchuk IM, Dong J, Irving RP et al. Pan-H7 influenza human antibody virus neutralization depends on avidity and steric hindrance. JCI Insight. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40471690/

[15] Ovchinnikov V, Karplus M. Phenomenological Modeling of Antibody Response from Vaccine Strain Composition. Antibodies (Basel). 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39846614/

[16] Kadam RU, Juraszek J, Brandenburg B et al. Small molecule-constrained paratope mimetic bicyclic peptides as potent inhibitors of group 1 and 2 influenza A virus hemagglutinins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41875158/

[17] Tonouchi K, Adachi Y, Suzuki T et al. Structural basis for cross-group recognition of an influenza virus hemagglutinin antibody that targets postfusion stabilized epitope. PLoS Pathog. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37556494/

[18] Huang CQ, Hills RA, Carnell GW et al. Computationally designed haemagglutinin with nanocage plug-and-display elicits pan-H5 influenza vaccine responses. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40476519/

[19] Park J, Champion JA. Development of Self-Assembled Protein Nanocage Spatially Functionalized with HA Stalk as a Broadly Cross-Reactive Influenza Vaccine Platform. ACS Nano. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38084728/

[20] Allen JD, Medina JM, Thomas MH et al. H3 hemagglutinin proteins optimized for 2018 to 2022 elicit neutralizing antibodies across panels of modern influenza A(H3N2) viruses. J Immunol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40400055/

[21] Allen JD, Ross TM. mRNA vaccines encoding computationally optimized hemagglutinin elicit protective antibodies against future antigenically drifted H1N1 and H3N2 influenza viruses isolated between 2018-2020. Front Immunol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38533508/

[22] Carlock MA, Ross TM. A computationally optimized broadly reactive hemagglutinin vaccine elicits neutralizing antibodies against influenza B viruses from both lineages. Sci Rep. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37741893/

[23] Wang L, Peng Z, He C et al. Algorithm-Optimized H5 Influenza mRNA Vaccine Induces Broad Immune Responses. Int J Mol Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42196525/

[24] Cai X, Fan M, Zhai Y et al. Human monoclonal antibodies isolated after seasonal vaccination broadly neutralize antigenically drifted influenza B viruses. Cell Host Microbe. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41864199/

[25] Carlock MA, Ross TM. Retooling a novel influenza B hemagglutinin to redirect neutralizing antibodies against B/Victoria strains. Vaccine. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42105398/

[26] Dosey A, Ellis D, Boyoglu-Barnum S et al. Combinatorial immune refocusing within the influenza hemagglutinin RBD improves cross-neutralizing antibody responses. Cell Rep. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38096052/

[27] Li Y, Liu P, Hao T et al. Rational design of an influenza-COVID-19 chimeric protective vaccine with HA-stalk and S-RBD. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37394992/

[28] Deng Y, Tang M, Ross TM et al. Repeated vaccination with homologous influenza hemagglutinin broadens human antibody responses to unmatched flu viruses. Elife. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41231113/

[29] Boudreau CM, Burke JS 4th, Roederer AL et al. Pre-existing Fc profiles shape the evolution of neutralizing antibody breadth following influenza vaccination. Cell Rep Med. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36921600/

[30] Guthmiller JJ, Yu-Ling Lan L, Li L et al. Long-lasting B cell convergence to distinct broadly reactive epitopes following vaccination with chimeric influenza virus hemagglutinins. Immunity. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40132593/

[31] Sadler HL, Rijal P, Tan TK et al. A locally administered single-cycle influenza vaccine expressing a non-fusogenic stabilized hemagglutinin stimulates strong T-cell and neutralizing antibody immunity. J Virol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39868800/

[32] Good MR, Guthmiller JJ. Female Antibodies Go the Distance against Influenza Viruses. mBio. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36094090/ *** 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.

[33] Zhang M, Yang C, Wu X et al. Antigenic analysis of the influenza B virus hemagglutinin protein. Virol Sin. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39233140/

[34] Rijnink WF, Stadlbauer D, Puente-Massaguer E et al. Characterization of non-neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies that target the M1 and NP of influenza A viruses. J Virol. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37916834/

[35] Xiong F, Zhang C, Shang B et al. An mRNA-based broad-spectrum vaccine candidate confers cross-protection against heterosubtypic influenza A viruses. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37671994/