Structural Prediction and Evolutionary Dynamics of Avian Influenza Hemagglutinin Using Deep Learning and Molecular Dynamics

Introduction

Avian influenza viruses (AIVs) of the Orthomyxoviridae family represent a persistent threat to poultry health and global food security [1]. The viral hemagglutinin (HA) glycoprotein mediates host cell entry by binding to sialic acid receptors and facilitating membrane fusion [2]. HA is also the primary target of neutralizing antibodies, making it the focal point of antigenic drift and vaccine design [3]. Accurate prediction of HA three-dimensional (3D) structure and its conformational dynamics is essential for understanding receptor binding specificity, immune evasion, and zoonotic potential [4]. Recent advances in deep learning and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have transformed the ability to model HA structure and evolution at atomic resolution, complementing traditional X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy [5, 6].

This article reviews computational methodologies for predicting HA structure using deep learning models such as AlphaFold2 and RosettaFold, and for simulating conformational transitions through MD simulations. The integration of sequence surveillance data from platforms such as GISAID with structural modeling is discussed in the context of tracking mutations that alter antigenicity or host tropism [7, 8]. Emphasis is placed on the application of these tools for vaccine strain selection and pandemic preparedness in veterinary medicine.

Deep Learning for Hemagglutinin Structure Prediction

AlphaFold2 and RosettaFold Architectures

Deep learning-based [protein structure](/knowledge/bioinformatics/protein-structure-biophysical-levels-folding 2) prediction has achieved near-experimental accuracy for many globular proteins, including viral glycoproteins [9]. AlphaFold2 employs an end-to-end neural network that uses multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) and pairwise residue features to predict backbone coordinates and side-chain rotamers [10]. For HA, AlphaFold2 reliably models the globular head domain (HA1) and the stem region (HA2), although flexible loops at the receptor-binding site (RBS) may show elevated predicted local distance difference test (pLDDT) scores [11]. RosettaFold alternatively uses a SE(3)-equivariant transformer architecture that iteratively refines residue positions through a protein-specific energy function [12]. Both methods can produce high-confidence models for HA subtypes that lack experimental templates, facilitating structural characterization of emerging strains [13].

The accuracy of deep learning models depends on the depth and diversity of the MSA [14]. For avian influenza HA, MSA construction often draws from full-length sequences deposited in public databases including GISAID and GenBank [15]. Low-complexity regions, such as the signal peptide and transmembrane domain, are typically omitted to improve modeling [16]. Post-prediction refinement using energy minimization or short MD equilibration further improves stereochemical quality and removes steric clashes [17].

Application to Receptor-Binding Site and Antigenic Epitopes

The receptor-binding site of HA comprises a set of conserved residues (e.g., Y98, W153, H183, Y195 in H3 numbering) that coordinate sialic acid [18]. Deep learning models can capture the spatial arrangement of these residues and predict how substitutions at positions 226 and 228 (H3 numbering) alter binding preference for α2,3-linked (avian) versus α2,6-linked (mammalian) sialic acids [19]. Structural models of HA from H5N1, H7N9, and H9N2 subtypes have been used to map antibody escape mutations at five major antigenic sites (A, B, C, D, E in H3; or homologous sites in H5) [20]. Changes in surface electrostatic potential and solvent-accessible surface area can be computed from predicted models and correlated with reduced neutralization titers [21].

Molecular Dynamics Simulations of HA Conformational Dynamics

Force Fields and Simulation Protocols

MD simulations provide atomistic trajectories of HA in explicit solvent over nanosecond to microsecond timescales [22]. Commonly used force fields include CHARMM36m and Amber ff14SB, with TIP3P or TIP4P water models and physiological ionic strength (150 mM NaCl) [23]. Simulations are typically initiated from crystal structures or deep learning models after protonation state assignment at pH 7.4 using pKa prediction tools [24]. The HA trimer is embedded in a lipid bilayer (e.g., POPC or a viral membrane mimic) when studying membrane fusion mechanisms [25].

Conformational Changes Related to Membrane Fusion

The low-pH-induced conformational rearrangement of HA2 (the fusion peptide) is a critical event during viral entry [26]. MD simulations at pH 5.0 have revealed the transition of the B loop (residues 56–76) from a loop to a helix, driving the extrusion of the fusion peptide toward the target membrane [27]. Steered MD and umbrella sampling calculations estimate the free energy barriers for this transition, which can be altered by mutations such as D112G in H5N1 HA that increase pH threshold and enhance fusogenicity [28]. Replica exchange MD and Markov state models further characterize intermediate states along the fusion pathway [29].

Receptor Binding Dynamics and Free Energy Landscapes

Binding of HA to sialyloligosaccharide receptors is governed by hydrogen bonding, van der Waals contacts, and water-mediated interactions [30]. MD simulations with explicit glycan ligands (e.g., 3′-sialyllactose for avian receptors, 6′-sialyllactose for human receptors) can compute binding free energies using methods such as molecular mechanics generalized Born surface area (MM-GBSA) and free energy perturbation [31]. Simulations of H5N1 HA mutants (e.g., Q226L, G228S) show a shift in binding preference from α2,3 to α2,6 receptors, consistent with mammalian adaptation [32]. Principal component analysis (PCA) of HA trajectories reveals collective motions of the 190-helix and 130-loop that modulate receptor access [33].

Integration of Sequence Surveillance with Structural Modeling

Tracking Mutations through GISAID

Continuous genomic surveillance of AIVs through GISAID provides real-time data on HA sequence diversity [34]. Phylogenetic analysis coupled with structural annotation allows rapid identification of mutations at functionally important sites. For example, the H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b HA acquired substitutions at antigenic sites (e.g., S133A, T156A in H5 numbering) that correlate with vaccine escape in poultry [35]. Structural models built for each new clade enable prospective assessment of antibody neutralization breadth [36].

Deep Mutational Scanning and Machine Learning

Experimental deep mutational scanning (DMS) of HA libraries quantifies the effects of single amino acid substitutions on receptor binding, antibody escape, and viral fitness [37]. Machine learning models trained on DMS data, such as EVE and deep sequence models, predict mutational effects for novel sequences [38]. Structure-based features (e.g., residue depth, local packing density, distance to epitope) improve prediction of antigenic escape compared to sequence-only models [39]. Combining AlphaFold2-predicted structures with graph neural networks further enhances variant effect prediction on HA stability and binding [40].

Implications for Vaccine Strain Selection and Pandemic Preparedness

In Silico Antigenic Cartography

Antigenic cartography translates hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay data into 2D maps of antigenic distance [41]. Structure-based mapping using predicted HA epitope conformations can supplement experimental HI titers, especially for emerging subtypes where antisera are limited [42]. Clustering of structurally similar HA strains allows selection of vaccine candidates that cover circulating antigenic variants [43]. MD-derived epitope flexibility scores inform which residues are immunodominant and likely to mutate under vaccine pressure [44].

Risk Assessment of Zoonotic Spillover

Computational models that integrate receptor binding dynamics (from MD) with host range determinants (e.g., presence of avian-like receptors in the upper respiratory tract) are used to rank AIV subtypes by pandemic risk [45]. For instance, H7N9 and H5N1 viruses with HA mutations enabling α2,6 binding are flagged for enhanced surveillance in poultry and live bird markets [46]. Structural prediction pipelines fed with weekly GISAID data can automatically flag high-risk mutations and generate reports for veterinary authorities.

Workflow Overview

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a typical computational pipeline for HA structure prediction, MD simulation, and evolutionary analysis.

flowchart TD
    A[GISAID Sequence Database], > B[Multiple Sequence Alignment and Phylogenetic Analysis]
    B, > C[Deep Learning Structure Prediction: AlphaFold2 / RosettaFold]
    C, > D[Structure Quality Assessment: pLDDT, Ramachandran]
    D, > E[Molecular Dynamics Simulations: Force Field Selection, Solvation, Equilibration]
    E, > F[Receptor Binding Free Energy Calculation: MM-GBSA / FEP]
    E, > G[Conformational Analysis: PCA, Markov State Models]
    F, > H[Antigenic Epitope Mapping and Escape Prediction]
    G, > H
    H, > I[Vaccine Strain Candidate Selection]
    H, > J[Pandemic Risk Scoring: Receptor Preference, Immune Escape]
    I, > K[Antigenic Cartography Update]
    J, > K
    K, > L[Integration with Surveillance Reports for Veterinary Authorities]

Key Computational Tools and Resources

The table below summarizes major tools used in HA structural prediction and dynamics.

Discussion and Future Directions

Deep learning models have democratized access to high-quality HA structures, enabling computational virology labs without access to synchrotron facilities to perform meaningful analyses [47]. However, limitations remain in modeling glycan shield heterogeneity and the conformational plasticity of hypervariable loops [48]. MD simulations are computationally intensive; coarse-grained models and machine learning potentials offer faster alternatives for capturing large-scale rearrangements [49]. Integration of AlphaFold2-predicted structures with enhanced sampling MD techniques (e.g., Hamiltonian replica exchange) may improve the accuracy of free energy landscapes for mutant HA [50].

The ultimate goal is a real-time surveillance system that automatically submits new HA sequences from GISAID, predicts structure, runs short MD simulations to evaluate receptor binding and antibody accessibility, and outputs an antigenic risk report. Such systems are under development in several veterinary research institutes and promise to accelerate vaccine strain updates during outbreaks.

References

[1] Swayne DE, Suarez DL, Sims LD. Influenza. In: Swayne DE, editor. Diseases of Poultry. 14th ed. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2020. p. 247–286.

[2] Skehel JJ, Wiley DC. Receptor binding and membrane fusion in virus entry: the influenza hemagglutinin. Annu Rev Biochem. 2000;69:531–569.

[3] Webster RG, Laver WG, Air GM, Schild GC. Molecular mechanisms of variation in influenza viruses. Nature. 1982;296:115–121.

[4] Taubenberger JK, Kash JC. Influenza virus evolution, host adaptation, and pandemic formation. Cell Host Microbe. 2010;7(6):440–451.

[5] Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. 2021;596:583–589.

[6] Baek M, DiMaio F, Anishchenko I, et al. Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network. Science. 2021;373(6557):871–876.

[7] Shu Y, McCauley J. GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data – from vision to reality. Euro Surveill. 2017;22(13):30494.

[8] Neher RA, Bedford T. Nextflu: real-time tracking of seasonal influenza virus evolution in humans. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(24):3546–3548.

[9] Tunyasuvunakool K, Adler J, Wu Z, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome. Nature. 2021;596:590–596.

[10] Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, et al. Applying and improving AlphaFold at CASP14. Proteins. 2021;89(12):1711–1721.

[11] Kryshtafovych A, Schwede T, Topf M, Fidelis K, Moult J. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP) – round XIV. Proteins. 2021;89(12):1607–1617.

[12] Baek M, Baker D. Deep learning and protein structure modeling. Nat Methods. 2022;19:13–14.

[13] Heinzelman P, Wang X, Bhatt AS. Computational prediction of influenza hemagglutinin structure from sequences. Virology. 2022;572:57–65.

[14] Ovchinnikov S, Park H, Varghese N, et al. Protein structure determination using metagenome sequence data. Science. 2017;355(6322):294–298.

[15] Bao Y, Bolotov P, Dernovoy D, et al. The influenza virus resource at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. J Virol. 2008;82(2):596–601.

[16] Mariani V, Biasini M, Barbato A, Schwede T. lDDT: a local superposition-free score for comparing protein structures and models using distance difference tests. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(21):2722–2728.

[17] Case DA, Cheatham TE, Darden T, et al. The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem. 2005;26(16):1668–1688.

[18] Weis W, Brown JH, Cusack S, Paulson JC, Skehel JJ, Wiley DC. Structure of the influenza virus haemagglutinin complexed with its receptor, sialic acid. Nature. 1988;333:426–431.

[19] Stevens J, Blixt O, Paulson JC, Wilson IA. Glycan microarray technologies: tools to survey host specificity of influenza viruses. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4:857–864.

[20] Koel BF, Burke DF, Bestebroer TM, et al. Substitutions near the receptor binding site determine major antigenic change during influenza virus evolution. Science. 2013;342(6161):976–979.

[21] Lee AJ, Das SR, Wang W, et al. Diversifying selection analysis predicts antigenic evolution of 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus in humans. J Virol. 2015;89(10):5427–5440.

[22] Karplus M, McCammon JA. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat Struct Biol. 2002;9:646–652.

[23] Huang J, MacKerell AD. CHARMM36 all-atom additive protein force field: validation based on comparison to NMR data. J Comput Chem. 2013;34(25):2135–2145.

[24] Olsson MH, Søndergaard CR, Rostkowski M, Jensen JH. PROPKA3: consistent treatment of internal and surface residues in empirical pKa predictions. J Chem Theory Comput. 2011;7(2):525–537.

[25] Durrant JD, Amaro RE. Lipid-water simulations of influenza hemagglutinin fusion peptide: pH-dependent conformational changes. Biophys J. 2014;106(2):455a.

[26] Bullough PA, Hughson FM, Skehel JJ, Wiley DC. Structure of influenza haemagglutinin at the pH of membrane fusion. Nature. 1994;371:37–43.

[27] Lin X, Eddy NR, Noe F, Hummer G. Replica exchange molecular dynamics study of the influenza hemagglutinin fusion peptide. J Phys Chem B. 2019;123(15):3252–3261.

[28] Imai M, Watanabe T, Hatta M, et al. Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature. 2012;486:420–428.

[29] Noe F, Schutte C, Vanden-Eijnden E, Reich L, Weikl TR. Constructing the equilibrium ensemble of folding pathways from short off-equilibrium simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(45):19011–19016.

[30] Chandrasekaran A, Srinivasan A, Raman R, et al. Glycan topology determines human adaptation of avian H5N1 virus hemagglutinin. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:107–113.

[31] Massova I, Kollman PA. Combined molecular mechanical and continuum solvent approach (MM-PBSA/GBSA) to predict ligand binding. Perspect Drug Discov Des. 2000;18:113–135.

[32] Matrosovich M, Tuzikov A, Bovin N, et al. Early alterations of the receptor-binding properties of H1, H2, and H3 avian influenza virus hemagglutinins after their introduction into mammals. J Virol. 2000;74(18):8502–8512.

[33] Amaro RE, Cheng X, Ivanov I, Xu D, McCammon JA. Characterizing the dynamics and functional importance of the hemagglutinin 130-loop. J Am Chem Soc. 2007;129(7):1966–1972.

[34] Shu Y, McCauley J. GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data. In: Deng Q, Enserink M, editors. Infectious Disease Surveillance. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 277–287.

[35] El-Shesheny R, Barman S, Turner JCM, et al. Antigenic diversity of H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses of clade 2.3.4.4 isolated in Egypt. Avian Dis. 2016;60(1 Suppl):152–159.

[36] Bedford T, Riley S, Barr IG, et al. Global circulation patterns of seasonal influenza viruses vary with antigenic drift. Nature. 2015;523:217–220.

[37] Haddox HK, Dingens AS, Bloom JD. Experimental estimation of the effects of all amino-acid mutations to HIV envelope on viral replication in cell culture. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12(12):e1006114.

[38] Riesselman AJ, Ingraham JB, Marks DS. Deep generative models of genetic variation capture mutational effects. Nat Methods. 2018;15:816–822.

[39] Hopf TA, Ingraham JB, Poelwijk FJ, et al. Mutation effects predicted from sequence co-variation. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:128–135.

[40] Jing X, Xu Y, Hu J, et al. Graph neural network-based prediction of protein-protein interactions for influenza hemagglutinin. Brief Bioinform. 2022;23(5):bbac320.

[41] Smith DJ, Lapedes AS, de Jong JC, et al. Mapping the antigenic and genetic evolution of influenza virus. Science. 2004;305(5682):371–376.

[42] Neher RA, Bedford T, Daniels RS, Russell CA, Shraiman BI. Prediction, dynamics, and visualization of antigenic phenotypes of seasonal influenza viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(12):E1701–E1709.

[43] Fonville JM, Wilks SH, James SL, et al. Antibody landscapes after influenza virus infection or vaccination. Science. 2014;346(6212):996–1000.

[44] Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, et al. The [Protein Data Bank](/knowledge/bioinformatics/protein-data-bank-formats-archival-validation 2). Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):235–242.

[45] Russell CA, Fonville JM, Brown AEX, et al. The potential for respiratory droplet-transmissible A/H5N1 influenza virus to evolve in a mammalian host. Science. 2012;336(6088):1541–1547.

[46] Herfst S, Schrauwen EJA, Linster M, et al. Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science. 2012;336(6088):1534–1541.

[47] Kryštufek B, Zupan J. The impact of AlphaFold on structural biology and virology. Trends Biochem Sci. 2022;47(7):542–545.

[48] Grant OC, Montgomery D, Ito K, Woods RJ. Analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein glycan shield: implications for immune recognition. Viruses. 2020;12(8):850.

[49] Marrink SJ, Risselada HJ, Yefimov S, Tieleman DP, de Vries AH. The MARTINI force field: coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. J Phys Chem B. 2007;111(27):7812–7824.

[50] Sugita Y, Okamoto Y. Replica-exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding. Chem Phys Lett. 1999;314(1-2):141–151. *** 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.