Computational Structural Virology of Avian Influenza Hemagglutinin: Predicting Host Range and Pandemic Potential

Introduction

Avian influenza viruses (AIVs) of the Orthomyxoviridae family remain a persistent threat to poultry production, wild bird conservation, and food security worldwide [1]. The hemagglutinin (HA) glycoprotein is the primary determinant of host range and viral entry, mediating attachment to sialic acid-containing receptors on host epithelial cells [1]. Computational structural virology has emerged as an indispensable toolkit for dissecting the molecular basis of HA-receptor interactions, predicting mutations that alter host tropism, and estimating the pandemic potential of circulating avian strains [2, 3]. This article provides an exhaustive, publication-grade review of how computational methods including homology modeling, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and machine learning (ML) are applied to analyze HA structure, predict receptor binding specificity between avian-type (alpha-2,3-linked sialic acid) and mammalian-type (alpha-2,6-linked sialic acid) receptors, identify human-adaptive mutations, and assess cross-species transmission risk. The focus remains strictly on veterinary medicine, poultry health, and comparative host-range biology, without reference to human clinical trials unless drawing direct parallels in receptor binding behavior.

Structural Basis of Hemagglutinin Function

The HA0 precursor is cleaved into HA1 and HA2 subunits, with the globular head domain of HA1 containing the receptor binding site (RBS) [1]. The RBS is composed of three structural elements: the 130-loop, the 150-loop, and the 190-helix, which together form a shallow pocket that accommodates the sialic acid moiety [4, 5]. The 220-loop also contributes to receptor specificity in certain subtypes [6]. The trimeric HA spike displays up to three RBS copies, and multivalent engagement with host glycans is crucial for high-avidity binding [7]. The HA head domain is also the major target of neutralizing antibodies, making its structural characterization central to both vaccine design and immune escape prediction [8, 9, 10].

Avian influenza viruses predominantly recognize alpha-2,3-linked sialic acids, which are abundant in the intestinal and respiratory tracts of birds [11, 12]. Mammalian influenza viruses, by contrast, bind preferentially to alpha-2,6-linked sialic acids found in the human upper respiratory tract [13, 14]. This receptor binding distinction is a fundamental barrier to zoonotic transmission, and computational approaches are uniquely suited to quantify the energetic and structural consequences of mutations that bridge this barrier [15, 16].

Computational Methods for HA Structure Analysis

Homology Modeling and Template-Based Structure Prediction

High-resolution X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) have provided atomic models for many HA subtypes, but structural data are unavailable for many field isolates. Homology modeling using templates from the Protein Data Bank can generate reliable three-dimensional HA structures when sequence identity exceeds 70 percent [2, 17]. Template-based prediction has been used to model HA from H5Ny, H6N1, H7N9, H10N8, and H15 subtypes [17, 18, 6, 16]. The quality of these models depends on accurate alignment of the RBS regions, particularly the 130-loop and 190-helix, which exhibit subtype-specific length variation [6, 16].

Machine learning approaches that use template-based predicted structures as features have been shown to classify AIV pathogenicity with high accuracy [2]. In one study, structural features such as solvent-accessible surface area and hydrogen bond networks derived from predicted HA models were fed into a random forest classifier to discriminate low-pathogenic from highly pathogenic AIV strains, achieving sensitivity above 90 percent [2]. This demonstrates the utility of predicted structures for rapid risk assessment when experimental structures are unavailable.

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Receptor Binding

Classical molecular dynamics simulations allow the study of HA-receptor complexes at atomistic resolution over nanosecond to microsecond timescales [19]. The RBS is flexible, and MD captures conformational changes upon ligand binding that static crystal structures cannot reveal [20, 19]. For avian influenza HA, simulations have been used to compute binding free energies for alpha-2,3 versus alpha-2,6 sialyloligosaccharides, mapping the energetic contributions of individual residues [11, 20, 13].

Replica exchange MD enhances sampling of glycan conformational space and has been applied to probe the binding specificity of neuraminidase as well as HA [19]. For H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b HA, MD simulations showed that the Q226L mutation (H3 numbering) not only increases affinity for alpha-2,6 receptors but also alters the orientation of the bound glycan, facilitating a more human-virus-like binding mode [13]. Similarly, simulations of H7N9 HA revealed that three mutations (Q226L, G186V, and T193A) are sufficient to switch receptor preference from avian to human-type, and the structural rationale for each mutation was characterized by monitoring hydrogen bond persistence and water-mediated contacts [21].

Docking of glycan libraries onto HA models, combined with MD refinement, has been used to predict receptor binding breadth for emerging strains [11, 22]. For instance, a single mutation (A134V) in dairy cow-associated H5N1 viruses increased binding to a broader set of alpha-2,6 glycans, a finding that was corroborated by glycan microarray experiments and MD free energy calculations [22]. Another study using MD identified that the Q226L mutation in H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4e HA converts the virus to bind human-type receptors, while the I192T mutation further stabilized the complex [13].

Machine Learning for Host Range Prediction

Beyond physics-based simulations, machine learning algorithms trained on sequence and structural data can classify HA subtypes by their predicted receptor preference [23, 24]. Features such as residue identity at key positions (e.g., 226, 228, 186, 193), electrostatic potential of the RBS, and glycan microarray binding patterns have been used as inputs for support vector machines, random forests, and neural networks [23, 2, 24].

Large-scale glycan microarray data from hundreds of HA variants have been analyzed by association methods to identify glycan substructures that correlate with host specificity [24]. These analyses revealed that avian-type binding is associated with recognition of sulfated and fucosylated moieties on alpha-2,3 glycans, whereas human-type binding correlates with linear alpha-2,6 chains [24].

Deep learning models that incorporate structural information from predicted or experimentally determined HA coordinates have been developed to score the impact of single mutations on receptor binding [20, 2]. One such model, trained on mutational scanning data, correctly predicted that the Q226L mutation in H6N1 HA switches binding to human receptors, consistent with experimental validation [14]. For H5N1, the model predicted that combinations of mutations at positions 226 and 228 are necessary and often sufficient for human-type binding, a prediction supported by subsequent structural studies [13, 25, 5].

Mutations Enabling Human Adaptation

A key goal of computational structural virology is to identify amino acid substitutions that reduce the avian-to-mammalian barrier. The most extensively studied substitution is the glutamine-to-leucine change at position 226 (Q226L) in the 220-loop, which is critical for recognizing alpha-2,6 linkages in H2 and H3 subtypes and has been shown to have a similar effect in H5, H6, H7, H9, and H10 viruses [13, 14, 21]. The structural basis is that Leu226 provides a hydrophobic surface that accommodates the larger dihedral angle of the alpha-2,6 linkage, whereas Gln226 favors the narrower alpha-2,3 linkage [13].

Additional mutations that contribute to human adaptation are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Key HA Mutations Associated with Enhanced Binding to Human-Type (Alpha-2,6) Receptors

The table highlights that a single mutation can be sufficient to shift receptor preference in certain genetic backgrounds, but multiple mutations are often required for high-affinity human-type binding [27, 21]. Deep mutational scanning experiments have shown that the RBS is remarkably permissive to many amino acid combinations while retaining functionality, which implies that the evolutionary landscape toward human adaptation is broad [27].

The H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b viruses have been shown to bind preferentially to avian-type mucin-like O-glycans, but some circulating strains already carry mutations that increase affinity for human-type receptors [11, 22]. Computational screening of all possible single-point mutations in the RBS of H5 HA using a structure-based energetic scoring function identified several high-risk substitutions (including Q226L and S227N) that could be monitored in surveillance programs [13, 25]. The same approach has been applied to H7N9 and H6N1 viruses, providing a prioritized list of mutations for real-time genomic surveillance [21, 6].

Predicting Pandemic Potential

Pandemic risk assessment for avian influenza viruses integrates multiple factors: receptor binding preference, HA stability, polymerase compatibility, and antigenic novelty [28, 3]. Computational models can estimate the likelihood that a given strain possesses the necessary molecular traits for sustained human-to-human transmission. The HA receptor binding specificity is weighted heavily in such models because it is the first step in infection [25, 15].

A systematic computational pipeline for pandemic risk assessment is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Computational Workflow for Predicting Pandemic Potential of Avian Influenza HA

graph TD
    A[Sequence of HA from surveillance sample], > B[Template-based homology modeling]
    B, > C[Refinement via MD simulation]
    C, > D[Docking of glycan libraries (α2,3 / α2,6)]
    D, > E[Binding free energy calculation (MM-PBSA/GBSA)]
    E, > F{High α2,6 affinity?}
    F, >|Yes| G[Scan for additional human-adaptive mutations (226, 228, etc.)]
    F, >|No| H[Low pandemic potential; continue monitoring]
    G, > I[Assess HA stability / pH activation]
    I, > J[Combine with PB2 / NP markers]
    J, > K[Pandemic risk score]
    K, > L[Alert for enhanced surveillance / control measures]

The pipeline begins with HA sequencing from field samples [1]. Homology modeling generates an initial structure, which is refined by MD. Glycan docking and free energy calculations predict receptor preference. If the HA shows high affinity for alpha-2,6 receptors, further scans for known human-adaptive mutations and assessments of HA stability (e.g., pH of fusion activation) are performed [28]. Finally, the HA results are integrated with markers from other gene segments, such as PB2 E627K or D701N, which facilitate replication in mammalian cells [29].

Machine learning classifiers that incorporate all these features have been trained on historical influenza A pandemics and near-pandemic events to output a probability score for pandemic emergence [2, 3]. These classifiers have retrospectively identified the 2009 H1N1 pandemic strain and the 2013 H7N9 outbreak as high-risk events, and they have flagged certain H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b isolates as elevated risk [30, 31, 3]. It is important to note that computational predictions are not deterministic; they require experimental follow-up and ongoing surveillance to confirm biological relevance [28].

The polymerase trapping mechanism, in which the viral polymerase complex is stabilized by specific host factors, has been recently described as a prerequisite for H5 high pathogenicity emergence [28]. This finding underscores that while HA receptor binding is necessary for host range expansion, it is not sufficient; the polymerase must also adapt to the new host environment [28, 29]. Computational models of polymerase-host interactions using hybrid structural modeling (combining cryo-EM and MD) are now being developed to incorporate this additional barrier [28, 29].

Cross-Links to Related Articles

The computational methods described here are part of a broader ecosystem of structural virology tools. For more detailed explanations of the underlying simulation techniques, readers are referred to the following articles on this site: Structural Dynamics of Avian Influenza Hemagglutinin: Molecular Modeling and Receptor Binding Predictions for Pandemic Risk Assessment, Deep Learning for Predicting Viral Host-Range Transitions and Zoonotic Potential, and Computational Analysis of Avian Influenza Hemagglutinin Receptor Binding Specificity: Implications for Cross-Species Transmission. For vaccine design approaches based on HA structure, see Computational Design of Broadly Neutralizing Antibodies for Influenza A Virus: A Structural Virology Approach. Surveillance and diagnostic applications are covered in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for Avian Influenza Virus Detection and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 in Poultry: Clinical Signs and Molecular Surveillance. The global genomic data sharing platform used for many of these analyses is described in The Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID).

Conclusion

Computational structural virology provides a powerful, cost-effective framework for predicting host range and pandemic potential of avian influenza viruses through analysis of the hemagglutinin protein. Homology modeling, molecular dynamics simulations, and machine learning algorithms can identify receptor binding specificity, prioritize human-adaptive mutations, and generate risk scores that inform veterinary surveillance and control strategies. The continued integration of these computational methods with high-throughput sequencing and experimental structural biology will enhance our ability to preemptively detect viruses with zoonotic potential and to design effective interventions for poultry populations. The ultimate goal is to translate structural insights into actionable veterinary public health measures that reduce the burden of avian influenza in domestic and wild bird populations.

References

[1] Perdue ML, Suarez DL. Structural features of the avian influenza virus hemagglutinin that influence virulence. Vet Microbiol. 2000. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10799780/

[2] Shin JH, Kim SJ, Kim G et al. Machine Learning Using Template-Based-Predicted Structure of Haemagglutinin Predicts Pathogenicity of Avian Influenza. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39252651/

[3] Zhang ZW, Liu T, Zeng J et al. Prediction of the next highly pathogenic avian influenza pandemic that can cause illness in humans. Infect Dis Poverty. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26612517/

[4] Wang P, Zuo Y, Sun J et al. Structural and functional definition of a vulnerable site on the hemagglutinin of highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus H5N1. J Biol Chem. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30737282/

[5] Zuo Y, Wang P, Sun J et al. Complementary recognition of the receptor-binding site of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza viruses by two human neutralizing antibodies. J Biol Chem. 2018. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30154240/

[6] Tzarum N, de Vries RP, Peng W et al. The 150-Loop Restricts the Host Specificity of Human H10N8 Influenza Virus. Cell Rep. 2017. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28402848/

[7] Nemanichvili N, Tomris I, Turner HL et al. Fluorescent Trimeric Hemagglutinins Reveal Multivalent Receptor Binding Properties. J Mol Biol. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30597163/

[8] Bhavsar D, León AN, Hsu WL et al. Structural and functional characterization of the antigenicity of influenza A virus hemagglutinin subtype H15. Cell Rep. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41485218/

[9] 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/

[10] 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/

[11] Weber J, Ponse NLD, Zhu X et al. The receptor binding properties of H5Ny influenza A viruses have evolved to bind to avian-type mucin-like O-glycans. PLoS Pathog. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41557749/

[12] Xu R, de Vries RP, Zhu X et al. Preferential recognition of avian-like receptors in human influenza A H7N9 viruses. Science. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24311689/

[13] Ríos Carrasco M, Lin TH, Zhu X et al. The Q226L mutation can convert a highly pathogenic H5 2.3.4.4e virus to bind human-type receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40232794/

[14] de Vries RP, Tzarum N, Peng W et al. A single mutation in Taiwanese H6N1 influenza hemagglutinin switches binding to human-type receptors. EMBO Mol Med. 2017. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28694323/

[15] Zhang H, de Vries RP, Tzarum N et al. A human-infecting H10N8 influenza virus retains a strong preference for avian-type receptors. Cell Host Microbe. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25766296/

[16] Tzarum N, de Vries RP, Zhu X et al. Structure and receptor binding of the hemagglutinin from a human H6N1 influenza virus. Cell Host Microbe. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25766295/

[17] Cueno ME, Suzuki I, Shimotomai S et al. Structural comparison among the 2013-2017 avian influenza A H5N6 hemagglutinin proteins: A computational study with epidemiological implications. J Mol Graph Model. 2018. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29220671/

[18] Tzarum N, McBride R, Nycholat CM et al. Unique Structural Features of Influenza Virus H15 Hemagglutinin. J Virol. 2017. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28404848/

[19] Phanich J, Threeracheep S, Kungwan N et al. Glycan binding and specificity of viral influenza neuraminidases by classical molecular dynamics and replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30126341/

[20] 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/

[21] de Vries RP, Peng W, Grant OC et al. Three mutations switch H7N9 influenza to human-type receptor specificity. PLoS Pathog. 2017. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28617868/

[22] 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/

[23] 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/

[24] Zhao N, Martin BE, Yang CK et al. Association analyses of large-scale glycan microarray data reveal novel host-specific substructures in influenza A virus binding glycans. Sci Rep. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26508590/

[25] Lin TH, Zhu X, Wang S et al. A single mutation in bovine influenza H5N1 hemagglutinin switches specificity to human receptors. Science. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39636969/

[26] Hanson A, Imai M, Hatta M et al. Identification of Stabilizing Mutations in an H5 Hemagglutinin Influenza Virus Protein. J Virol. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26719265/

[27] Wu NC, Xie J, Zheng T et al. Diversity of Functionally Permissive Sequences in the Receptor-Binding Site of Influenza Hemagglutinin. Cell Host Microbe. 2017. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28618270/

[28] Funk M, Spronken MI, Hutchinson RM et al. Polymerase trapping as the mechanism of H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus genesis. Science. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41818353/

[29] Mänz B, de Graaf M, Mögling R et al. Multiple Natural Substitutions in Avian Influenza A Virus PB2 Facilitate Efficient Replication in Human Cells. J Virol. 2016. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27076644/

[30] Alzua GP, León AN, Yellin T et al. Human monoclonal antibodies that target clade 2.3.4.4b H5N1 hemagglutinin. Nat Commun. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41390501/

[31] Puente-Massaguer E, Andrade TG, Scherm MJ et al. A clade 2.3.4.4b H5N1 virus vaccine that elicits cross-protective antibodies against conserved domains of H5 and N1 glycoproteins. bioRxiv. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40832286/

[32] Puente-Massaguer E, Galdino Andrade T, Scherm MJ et al. An H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus vaccine that elicits cross-protective antibodies against conserved domains of H5 and N1 glycoproteins. Nat Commun. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41577702/

[33] Cueno ME, Imai K, Tamura M et al. Structural differences between the avian and human H7N9 hemagglutinin proteins are attributable to modifications in salt bridge formation: a computational study with implications in viral evolution. PLoS One. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24116152/

[34] Meyer AG, Dawson ET, Wilke CO. Cross-species comparison of site-specific evolutionary-rate variation in influenza haemagglutinin. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23382434/

[35] García M, Crawford JM, Latimer JW et al. Heterogeneity in the haemagglutinin gene and emergence of the highly pathogenic phenotype among recent H5N2 avian influenza viruses from Mexico. J Gen Virol. 1996. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8757992/ *** 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.