Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus

Overview and Taxonomy of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus

Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) represents one of the most economically significant viral pathogens confronting global salmonid aquaculture, a disease burden recognized by both the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as a major constraint to sustainable production. The virus is the etiological agent of infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN), a highly contagious and often devastating disease that primarily afflicts juvenile salmonids, including rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), and various species of Pacific salmon and trout [4, 12]. The disease is characterized by acute necrotizing pancreatitis and extensive pathology in the hematopoietic tissues of the kidney and spleen, frequently resulting in mortality rates that can exceed 80–90% in affected fry and post-smolt populations [4, 5]. The global distribution of IPNV, coupled with its ability to establish persistent, subclinical infections in carrier fish, makes it a pathogen of paramount concern for the aquaculture industry, demanding rigorous surveillance, biosecurity, and the development of effective vaccination and selective breeding strategies [4, 8, 10].

Taxonomic Classification and Virion Architecture

IPNV is the type species of the genus Aquabirnavirus within the family Birnaviridae, a family of non-enveloped, icosahedral viruses that infect a diverse range of vertebrate hosts, including fish, birds, and insects [1, 4]. The birnavirus family is distinguished by its unique bisegmented double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genome, a feature that sets it apart from many other RNA viruses. Historically, the taxonomy of these viruses has been complex, with early classification relying on serological properties. However, modern molecular phylogenetics, primarily based on the sequence of the VP2 major capsid protein gene, has superseded this system. The genus Aquabirnavirus is now understood to encompass a broad collection of viruses isolated from aquatic hosts, often referred to collectively as "aquabirnaviruses," with IPNV being the most intensively studied and economically impactful member [4, 12].

The IPNV virion is a non-enveloped icosahedron approximately 60 nm in diameter [1, 6]. The capsid possesses a T=13 icosahedral symmetry, a complex architectural feature that has only recently been fully resolved at the atomic level for the infectious particle. This high-resolution structure, determined for the IPNV L5 strain at 2.75 Å, reveals that the capsid is composed of the major structural protein VP2, which forms the outer shell. Unlike the T=1 subviral particles that have been the focus of prior structural studies, the infectious T=13 capsid exhibits critical functional motifs essential for viral replication and assembly. Notably, the C-terminal regions of VP2 subunits within the pentagonal assembly units at each 5-fold axis interlock with adjacent subunits, a configuration likely crucial for ensuring correct T=13 particle assembly and preventing the formation of non-infectious T=1 particles [1]. Furthermore, positively charged residues within obstructed capsid pores at these 5-fold axes are speculated to facilitate intraparticle genome synthesis, a unique and poorly understood aspect of birnavirus biology [1].

Genomic Organization and Viral Proteins

The IPNV genome consists of two linear segments of dsRNA, designated segment A and segment B, each possessing a 5′-terminal covalently linked genome-linked protein, VPg, which functions as a primer for RNA synthesis and a cap substitute for translation [4, 6]. Segment B, approximately 2.8 kilobases (kb) in length, encodes the VP1 protein, which is the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). VP1 exists in two forms: a free form (VP1) and a genome-linked form (VPg), the latter of which is covalently attached to the 5′ ends of both RNA segments. This VPg moiety is critical, as it serves not only as a primer for RNA synthesis but also as a cap substitute, interacting with the host translation initiation factor eIF4E to drive translation of viral mRNAs in a cap-independent manner, a key adaptation for hijacking the host translational machinery [6].

Segment A, approximately 3.1 kb in length, contains two open reading frames (ORFs). A small ORF near the 5′ end encodes VP5, a non-structural protein of 17 kDa which has been implicated in the inhibition of apoptosis and the modulation of the host antiviral response [4, 18]. The large ORF of segment A encodes a 106 kDa polyprotein, which is subsequently cleaved by the viral protease (VP4) to generate the three structural proteins: the precursor of the major capsid protein (pVP2), the non-structural VP4 (a serine protease), and the non-structural VP3 (a minor capsid component involved in ribonucleoprotein complex assembly) [4, 6]. The pVP2 protein is later processed by a series of proteolytic cleavages, likely mediated by VP4, to produce the mature VP2 protein that constitutes the outer capsid shell [1, 4]. The VP3 protein, thought to form a scaffold within the virion, interacts with the dsRNA genome and the VP1 polymerase, playing a role in genome encapsidation.

Genogroup Classification and Global Diversity

The extensive genetic diversity of IPNV isolates has been systematically classified into a series of genogroups based on phylogenetic analysis of the VP2 gene sequence, which encodes the major antigenic and virulence determinants of the virus [2, 4, 10]. This classification has largely supplanted the earlier serotyping system (e.g., the Sp, Ab, and He serotypes) and provides a robust framework for understanding the molecular epidemiology and global distribution of the virus. Currently, seven distinct genogroups (1 through 7) are recognized, with some variation in the literature depending on the genetic markers and isolates analyzed [2, 14, 17]. The geographic distribution of these genogroups is not uniform; rather, it reflects historical patterns of aquaculture, fish movements, and local viral evolution.

Genogroup 1 and Genogroup 5 are the most prevalent and economically important, frequently associated with clinical disease outbreaks in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Genogroup 1, which largely corresponds to the serotype Ab, is particularly dominant in rainbow trout populations in North America, Chile, and China [3, 10, 15, 18]. In contrast, Genogroup 5, corresponding to the serotype Sp, is widespread in European salmonid farming, especially in Atlantic salmon, and has been implicated in severe outbreaks [14, 17, 20]. Genogroup 2 is reported in several European countries, including Finland and Italy, and is associated with both clinical and subclinical infections [14, 16]. Genogroups 3 and 4 are less frequently encountered, often appearing as sporadic isolates or in specific geographic niches [17]. Genogroup 6 is of particular interest due to its recent isolation and characterization. For instance, a novel genogroup 6 IPNV was isolated from landlocked sea trout (Salmo trutta) in Lake Vänern, Sweden, and found to be of low pathogenicity in experimental infections of Atlantic salmon, sea trout, and rainbow trout [2]. Similarly, a genogroup 6 isolate from Finland was also shown to cause only low mortality in rainbow trout [14]. Genogroup 7 has been identified in isolates from China and Iran, though its pathogenic potential appears to be variable and often low, with studies showing low viral loads and no significant clinical signs in infected fish [7, 13].

The molecular diversity within these genogroups is driven by both genetic drift and reassortment of the two genomic segments. Reassortment events, where the segment A and segment B of different genogroups combine to form a novel hybrid virus, have been documented in several studies, highlighting an important mechanism for generating genetic diversity and potentially altering virulence and host range [16, 17]. For example, reassortant viruses of genogroup III/II have been detected in Scottish isolates, and an Italian isolate was found to be a reassortant between genogroup 2 (VP1) and genogroup 5 (VP2) [16, 17]. This capacity for reassortment underscores the dynamic and evolving nature of the IPNV population.

Virulence Determinants and Host Adaptation

Decades of research have been dedicated to identifying the specific viral determinants that govern the virulence of IPNV isolates. While no single, universal "magic marker" has been identified, a strong association has been established between specific amino acid motifs in the VP2 protein, particularly within a hypervariable region of the P domain, and the observed pathogenicity in different host species [4, 11, 19]. The most extensively studied motif involves residues at positions 217 and 221 (using the Sp serotype numbering system). The presence of a threonine at position 217 and an alanine at position 221 (T217, A221) is strongly correlated with high virulence, particularly in Atlantic salmon, whereas a proline at position 217 and a threonine at position 221 (P217, T221) is typically associated with low virulence or avirulent strains [13, 16, 19, 20]. This motif is located on surface-exposed loops of the VP2 shell, making it a prime target for host immune recognition and a site where amino acid changes can dramatically alter antigenicity and the ability to evade the host immune response [17]. Indeed, the structure of the T=13 capsid has revealed that these surface loops are the key determinants of antigenic diversity and virulence, and they are under strong selective pressure from the host immune system [1, 17].

However, the relationship is not absolute and is host-species dependent. A classic example is that while the T217A221 motif is highly virulent in Atlantic salmon, the same motif can be avirulent in rainbow trout [14, 19]. This host-dependence is powerfully illustrated by a comparative study of Finnish IPNV isolates: a local genogroup 5 isolate caused high mortality in rainbow trout, while a Norwegian genogroup 5 isolate, which is highly virulent in Atlantic salmon, caused only subclinical infection in the same rainbow trout host [14]. This suggests that viral adaptation to a particular host species is a key factor in virulence. Furthermore, recent evidence indicates that novel viral variants can emerge that are capable of causing disease even in genetically resistant fish populations. A variant identified in Western Norway, while possessing the avirulent P217T221 motif, harbored a unique set of mutations in the hypervariable domain of VP2 that apparently allowed it to overcome the genetic resistance bred into Atlantic salmon, a phenomenon that has been reported from Scotland, Chile, and Norway [8, 9, 11]. This evolution of "vaccine-escape" or "resistance-breaking" variants represents a major challenge for the long-term sustainability of both genetic selection and vaccination strategies.

Evolutionary Dynamics and Ecology

The evolutionary rate of IPNV is notably slower than that of many other RNA viruses infecting fish, such as the salmonid alphavirus. A comprehensive study of Italian IPNV isolates collected over four decades estimated the mean evolutionary rate for the VP1 and VP2 genes to be approximately 1.70 × 10⁻⁴ and 1.45 × 10⁻⁴ nucleotide substitutions per site per year, respectively [16]. This relatively low rate of change is likely linked to the virus's persistent, often subclinical lifestyle and the constraints imposed by the dsRNA genome and its complex replication cycle. The strong selective constraints, evidenced by the low ratios of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions (dN/dS), suggest that the virus is under purifying selection to maintain critical structural and functional integrity [16]. However, within the hypervariable region of VP2, positive selection is evident, driven by immune pressure from the host, which allows for the emergence of antigenic variants that can escape neutralizing antibodies [17]. This dynamic interplay between conservation and variation allows IPNV to persist in the host population while remaining capable of causing periodic, devastating outbreaks.

Viral Structure and Genomic Organization

Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) is the etiological agent of a highly contagious and economically devastating disease affecting salmonid aquaculture worldwide, recognized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) as a significant pathogen requiring notification in many member countries. As the type species of the genus Aquabirnavirus within the family Birnaviridae, IPNV exhibits a unique and complex architecture that underpins its pathogenesis, immune evasion, and replication strategy. The virus is characterized as a non-enveloped, icosahedral particle with a bisegmented double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genome, a structural paradigm that distinguishes it from most other fish viruses, which are often enveloped rhabdoviruses or orthomyxoviruses [4, 12]. This arrangement necessitates highly specialized mechanisms for genome replication, transcription, and translation, particularly given the absence of a 5' cap structure on its mRNAs.

The Bisegmented dsRNA Genome

The viral genome is composed of two linear dsRNA segments, designated segment A and segment B, each of which is monocistronic in its primary coding capacity but exploits alternative translational strategies to maximize its proteomic output [4, 6]. The total genome size is approximately 7.0–7.5 kbp, with segment A being the larger of the two (~3.1–3.6 kbp) and segment B comprising the smaller (~2.8–3.0 kbp) [23, 26]. A defining biochemical feature of the IPNV genome, shared across the Birnaviridae family, is the covalent linkage of the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), termed VP1, to the 5' terminus of each genomic strand. This protein–RNA complex is known as the VPg (viral protein genome-linked) and serves a critical, multifunctional role [4, 6]. Unlike cellular mRNAs or those of many other RNA viruses, IPNV transcripts lack both a 5' cap structure and a 3' poly(A) tail. The VPg protein thus substitutes for the cap, directly mediating translation initiation by interacting with the host translational machinery [6]. This unique strategy allows the virus to commandeer the host ribosome without the need for canonical cap-binding proteins.

Segment A encodes a large open reading frame (ORF) that is translated into a ~106 kDa polyprotein, NH2-pVP2-VP4-VP3-COOH. This polyprotein is co-translationally cleaved by the viral protease VP4 to generate the major capsid protein precursor (pVP2) and the minor internal capsid protein VP3 [4, 17, 23]. Further, a small, non-structural ORF preceding the polyprotein encodes VP5, a 4.5–5.5 kDa protein that has been identified as a virulence factor with anti-apoptotic properties, helping to sustain the host cell during the early stages of infection [4, 18].

Segment B is monocistronic and encodes the VP1 protein. VP1 exists in two functional conformations: a free form (VP1) that acts as the RdRp, and the genome-linked form (VPg) that is covalently attached to the 5' ends of the genomic dsRNA and also to the viral mRNA transcripts [6]. This dual functionality is a hallmark of birnaviruses and is essential for the initiation of RNA synthesis. The VP1 protein adopts a non-canonical right-handed polymerase fold, characteristic of the Birnaviridae, and is the target for novel antiviral strategies [25].

Capsid Architecture and the T=13 Organization

The mature, infectious IPNV virion is a non-enveloped icosahedron with a diameter of approximately 60–65 nm. For decades, structural studies were limited to subviral T=1 particles, which provided foundational but incomplete information. However, recent cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) has resolved the native T=13 capsid of the IPNV L5 strain at a near-atomic resolution of 2.75 Å, revealing a complexity previously unseen [1]. This high-resolution structure demonstrates that the outer capsid is comprised of 260 trimeric clusters of the major capsid protein VP2, organized with a triangulation number T=13 (laevo). This arrangement is similar to that of the avian birnavirus infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV), but with critical species-specific differences [1].

The VP2 protein is synthesized as a precursor (pVP2) and undergoes a maturation cleavage event, likely performed by VP4, to yield the final, infectious form of the capsid protein. Each VP2 monomer folds into a three-domain architecture: a base (B) domain, a shell (S) domain, and a protrusion (P) domain. The S and B domains form the contiguous inner shell of the capsid, while the P domain projects outward, forming the prominent surface spikes that are the primary targets for neutralizing antibodies and determinants of viral serotype [1, 8, 11]. The hypervariable region (HVR) within the P domain is a hotspot for amino acid substitutions that correlate with virulence, antigenic variation, and host adaptation [4, 16, 17, 19]. Specifically, residues at positions 217, 221, and 247 of VP2 are well-established markers; the motifs T217A221 (high virulence) versus P217T221 (low virulence/avirulent) are a major focus of epidemiological and experimental studies [13, 14, 17, 19].

A striking feature revealed by the T=13 structure is the organization of VP2 subunits around the icosahedral 5-fold axes. Here, five VP2 subunits form a pentameric assembly unit. The C-terminal regions of these subunits interlock with adjacent VP2 molecules, forming a "molecular handshake" that stabilizes the entire capsid [1]. This interlocking is not observed in the smaller T=1 subviral particles and is believed to be a key determinant for the correct assembly of the larger, infectious T=13 particle. Furthermore, at the 5-fold axes, the capsid possesses small pores that are lined with positively charged residues. While these pores are obstructed by the interlocking C-termini of VP2 in the mature virion, their structural presence has led to speculation that they may serve as conduits for the extrusion of newly synthesized viral RNA or for the import of nucleotides during intraparticle genome synthesis, a process unique to birnaviruses [1].

Internal Proteins and Genome Packaging

The interior of the capsid is a crowded environment containing the bisegmented dsRNA genome in association with the minor internal protein VP3 and the polymerase VP1. VP3 is a highly conserved, basic protein that forms a ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex with the dsRNA genome, acting as a scaffold to condense and protect the viral RNA [4]. This VP3-RNA interaction is considered analogous to the nucleocapsid proteins found in other viruses and is critical for maintaining the structural integrity of the viral core. VP1, in its VPg-conjugated form, is also packaged within the virion, ensuring that the replicative enzyme is immediately available for transcription upon entry and uncoating [6]. The non-structural protein VP4, a serine protease, is responsible for the proteolytic maturation of the pVP2 polyprotein, but it is not a structural component of the mature virion [4, 23].

Implications for Viral Pathogenesis

The structural organization of IPNV directly informs its ability to cause disease and persist within its host. The VP2 P domain, with its exposed loops, is the primary interface for host cell attachment and entry. The virus has been shown to exploit macropinocytosis as the primary entry pathway, utilizing host actin rearrangements and lipid rafts, a process dependent on interactions between VP2 and surface receptors like non-muscle myosin heavy chain 9 (Myh9) [21, 22, 24]. The VPg-mediated translation initiation, which bypasses cap-dependent translation, allows IPNV to maintain protein synthesis even when the host’s cap-dependent translation is shut down by the interferon response or other antiviral mechanisms [6]. Furthermore, the structural stability afforded by the T=13 capsid and the interlocking VP2 C-termini contributes to the virus’s remarkable environmental persistence, enabling its survival in water and fomites for extended periods, a factor that complicates control measures on fish farms and aligns with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guidelines for biosecurity in aquaculture. The low evolutionary rate observed in some low-virulence strains, contrasted with the rapid emergence of novel variants in vaccinated populations (as documented by the WOAH), is a direct consequence of the structural constraints imposed by the VP2 protein’s need to maintain both its structural role and its antigenic surface [8, 9, 11, 16].

Molecular Pathogenesis and Host Immune Response

The intricate interplay between Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) and its salmonid hosts constitutes a paradigm of viral manipulation, immune subversion, and host genetic co-evolution. As a non-enveloped, bisegmented dsRNA virus belonging to the family Birnaviridae [4, 12], IPNV has evolved a sophisticated arsenal to exploit host cellular machinery for entry, replication, and assembly, while simultaneously deploying a multi-pronged strategy to dismantle the host’s antiviral defenses. A comprehensive understanding of these molecular mechanisms is not merely an academic exercise; it is foundational for developing rational control strategies, including next-generation vaccines and antiviral therapeutics intended to mitigate the devastating economic losses this pathogen inflicts on the global salmonid aquaculture industry, a concern formally recognized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH).

Viral Entry: A Macropinocytic Hijack Mediated by Myh9

The initial step of viral pathogenesis, cellular entry, is a critical determinant of tropism and infectivity. For IPNV, this process is a highly orchestrated event that deviates from clathrin- and caveolin-mediated endocytosis. Seminal research has definitively established that IPNV enters susceptible cells, such as the Chinook salmon embryo cell line CHSE-214 and the macrophage-like SHK-1 cell line from Atlantic salmon, via macropinocytosis [22, 24]. This actin-driven, non-selective fluid-phase uptake mechanism is exploited by the virus. Upon binding, IPVN stimulates the formation of membrane ruffles and protrusions, hallmarks of macropinocytosis, which engulf the virion into large, uncoated vesicles. Pharmacological inhibition of the Na+/H+ exchanger NHE1 with EIPA significantly abrogates infection, confirming macrophnocytosis as the primary portal of entry [22, 24].

The identity of the specific cellular receptor(s) facilitating this process has been a subject of intense investigation. A critical breakthrough identified non-muscle myosin heavy chain 9 (Myh9) as a fundamental factor for IPNV entry [21]. Through a combination of immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry, it was demonstrated that the viral outer capsid protein VP2 directly interacts with Myh9 on the cell surface. The infection dynamic is starkly dependent on this interaction; IPNV infection induces a rapid redistribution of Myh9 to the cell membrane, and its expression level is dynamically altered during replication. Functional ablation of Myh9 through specific antibodies, siRNA knockdown, or pharmacological inhibitors (e.g., ML-7) dramatically suppresses IPNV infection, while overexpression of Myh9 renders even less-susceptible cells permissive to a significantly higher viral load [21]. This finding not only identifies a critical host factor but also suggests that Myh9 acts as a key orchestrator of the macropinocytic machinery required for IPNV internalization.

Intracellular Replication: The VPg-Cap Substitute and Autophagy’s Dual-Edged Sword

Once internalized, the virus must navigate the endocytic pathway to release its dsRNA genome and establish a replicative niche. The molecular biology of IPNV replication is unique among RNA viruses. The viral genome lacks a 5' cap and a 3' poly(A) tail; instead, each 5' end is covalently linked to the viral protein VPg (VP1) [6]. This VPg protein is multifunctional: it serves as the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) and, critically, as a cap substitute for translation initiation [6, 25]. Research has demonstrated that VPg interacts directly with the host translation initiation factor eIF4E, thereby acting as a molecular mimic of the 5' cap to recruit translation machinery. Concurrently, VPg inhibits cap-dependent translation of host cellular mRNAs, effectively shutting down host protein synthesis to redirect the translational apparatus towards viral polyprotein production. This strategy is complemented by the presence of an internal ribosome entry site (IRES) on segment A mRNA, ensuring efficient translation even under conditions of cap-dependent translation inhibition [6].

Within the cellular milieu, the dsRNA genome and replication intermediates are potent pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). To counter this, IPNV has evolved a profound ability to manipulate cell stress and survival pathways. A striking example is the induction of autophagy. Studies in CHSE-214 cells have shown that IPNV infection robustly triggers the formation of autophagosomes, as evidenced by the conversion of LC3-I to LC3-II and the degradation of the autophagy substrate p62 [42]. However, this host response is subverted by the virus. Pharmacological induction of autophagy with rapamycin significantly enhances IPNV multiplication at both the RNA and protein levels, while inhibition with 3-methyladenine suppresses it [42]. This indicates that IPNV not only evades autophagic degradation but actively co-opts the autophagic machinery to promote its own replication, potentially by providing membranous scaffolds for replication complexes or by modulating the cellular environment to favor viral synthesis.

Furthermore, IPNV exploits the protein kinase R (PKR) pathway in a counterintuitive manner. While PKR is a classical interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) that typically restricts viral replication by phosphorylating eIF2α and halting translation, IPNV appears to use PKR activation to its own advantage. Despite failing to upregulate PKR expression during infection, IPNV infection leads to PKR-dependent phosphorylation of eIF2α. More importantly, treatment with a specific PKR inhibitor (C16) results in a significant decrease in viral titers and a reduction in cell membrane compromise, suggesting that the virus has evolved a mechanism to selectively utilize PKR-mediated translational arrest to shut down host protein synthesis while preferentially translating its own VPg-linked mRNAs [47]. This nuanced manipulation of a canonical antiviral defense highlights the sophisticated co-evolutionary arms race between IPNV and its host.

Innate Immune Evasion: The MAVS Bypass and Epigenetic Silencing of Interferon

The host’s first line of defense against dsRNA viruses is the type I interferon (IFN) system, initiated primarily by RIG-I-like receptors (RLRs) signaling through the mitochondrial antiviral signaling protein (MAVS). Strikingly, IPNV has evolved a formidable capacity to circumvent this pathway. A landmark study using TALEN-mediated gene editing to disrupt MAVS in CHSE cells revealed that IPNV replication is unaffected by the absence of MAVS, in stark contrast to a positive-sense RNA virus like salmonid alphavirus (SAV-3), which showed a 1.5 log10 increase in titer in MAVS-disrupted cells [27]. This finding provides compelling evidence that IPNV can initiate productive infection and replicate efficiently without engaging the canonical RLR-MAVS axis. This ability to "fly under the radar" of the primary cytosolic dsRNA sensor is a cornerstone of its immune evasion strategy and explains, in part, the modest and delayed IFN response observed in vivo.

Beyond simply avoiding detection, IPNV actively epigenetically represses the host IFN response. A pioneering study demonstrated that in rainbow trout monocyte/macrophage (RTS11) cells, IPNV infection induces a dynamic and coordinated epigenetic reprogramming at the promoters of key antiviral genes, namely IFN1 and IFNγ2 [29]. For IFN1, the promoter remains unmethylated throughout infection. Instead, IPNV modulates histone acetylation: histone H4 is hyperacetylated at 6 hours post-infection (hpi), correlating with a transient increase in IFN1 transcription, followed by a decrease in acetylation below basal levels at 24 hpi, which silences the gene. This is achieved by an initial upregulation of histone acetyltransferases (HATs), followed by a shift towards histone deacetylases (HDACs). For IFNγ2, the virus employs a dual strategy involving both promoter methylation and histone deacetylation. A transient increase in global promoter methylation at 6 hpi switches to demethylation at 24 hpi, coupled with the same pattern of H4 acetylation changes [29]. This sophisticated temporal control allows the virus to shut down both the initial antiviral response and the adaptive Th1-type immunity mediated by IFNγ, creating a permissive environment for persistent infection.

The suppressive strategy extends to the signaling level. Unlike many other viruses, IPNV does not robustly induce the expression of IRF3 or other key transcription factors upstream of IFN. The general trend is one of muted or absent induction of core antiviral genes. Red blood cells (RBCs) in rainbow trout, while not permissive to IPNV infection, can respond to the virus by upregulating ifn-1, pkr, and mx genes [43]. This suggests that non-immune cells can act as sentinels, but the overall immune microenvironment is still heavily skewed by viral antagonism.

Host Genetic Resistance and the Adaptive Immune Response

The host genome plays a pivotal role in determining the outcome of IPNV infection, with a strong genetic component to resistance at both the QTL and polygenic levels. In Atlantic salmon, resistance is dominated by a single major quantitative trait locus (QTL) on chromosome 26 [31]. Through a powerful combination of whole-genome sequencing, functional annotation, and CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, the nedd-8 activating enzyme 1 (nae1) gene was identified as the causative gene underlying this major QTL [31]. Nae1 is a critical component of the neddylation pathway, a ubiquitin-like modification process that regulates the activity of cullin-RING ubiquitin ligases, which in turn control the turnover of many proteins, including those involved in cell cycle, signaling, and stress responses. Knockout of nae1 in a salmon cell line led to a highly significant reduction in IPNV replication, confirming its role in supporting the virus. This discovery highlights a fascinating host-pathogen interface where the host’s protein degradation machinery is essential for viral replication, making it a potential target for therapeutic intervention.

In rainbow trout, the genetic architecture is more polygenic. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified multiple SNPs across the genome explaining moderate proportions of genetic variance, with candidate genes such as Sentrin-specific protease 5 (SENP5) (involved in deSUMOylation) and microtubule-associated protein 2 emerging as potentially relevant [28, 38]. Heritability estimates for IPNV survival range from 0.21 to 0.82, depending on the trait and population [28, 35, 38], confirming that substantial progress can be made through genomic selection.

The adaptive immune response is critical for long-term protection and vaccine efficacy. The VP2 capsid protein is the primary target of neutralizing antibodies [33, 37, 44]. Vaccination with inactivated virus or recombinant VP2 protein induces a robust humoral response, with neutralizing antibodies first detectable around 30 days post-immunization and peaking at 45 days, providing significant protection against challenge (Relative Percent Survival values of 70-79%) [3, 37]. Bivalent DNA and recombinant virus-vectored vaccines expressing both IHNV G and IPNV VP2 have shown even greater promise, inducing high levels of neutralizing antibodies against both viruses and conferring RPS values exceeding 80% [30, 44]. The cellular response is equally important. Upregulation of CD4, CD8, and IgT/IgM transcripts in vaccinated fish indicates the involvement of both helper and cytotoxic T cell responses [3, 40]. In resistant versus susceptible Atlantic salmon fry, a stark contrast is observed: susceptible fish mount an excessive but ineffective inflammatory response, whereas resistant fish exhibit a more controlled, M2 macrophage-driven response that is associated with survival [45].

Co-infection Dynamics and Viral Interference

In the natural environment, IPNV rarely exists in isolation. Co-infections with other prominent salmonid viruses, such as Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV) and Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus (VHSV), are common and dramatically alter disease outcomes [34, 39]. The molecular basis of these interactions reveals a complex web of viral interference and synergy. When IPNV infection precedes IHNV, it significantly inhibits IHNV replication, both in vitro and in vivo [32, 41]. This inhibitory effect is time-dependent, becoming stronger with longer intervals between IPNV and IHNV inoculation. Mechanistically, IPNV appears to interfere with IHNV entry by downregulating expression of host endocytic genes like clathrin and dynamin-2, and by inducing a generalized antiviral state through IFN induction [41]. In contrast, when IHNV infection is established first, it can enhance IPNV replication, likely by shutting down host protein synthesis which inadvertently provides a more favorable environment for the recalcitrant IPNV [36, 39]. This synergistic effect can lead to higher mortality than either virus alone. Similarly, IPNV infection can provide cross-protection against SVCV in a zebrafish model, reducing mortality through viral interference [46]. These findings underscore that IPNV pathogenesis is not a monolithic event but is profoundly shaped by the host’s prior and concurrent microbial landscape.

In summary, IPNV’s pathogenesis is a multi-layered phenomenon defined by a unique entry mechanism, the subversion of cellular stress responses, a masterful evasion of innate immunity through both avoidance and active epigenetic repression, and a strong reliance on host genetic factors for replication. The complex, context-dependent outcomes of co-infections further complicate the picture, highlighting the necessity of studying this virus within its ecological niche to develop truly effective and durable control strategies.

Epidemiology and Transmission Dynamics

Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) represents one of the most economically consequential viral pathogens confronting global salmonid aquaculture, with its epidemiological footprint extending across virtually all major production regions. The virus, a member of the genus Aquabirnavirus within the family Birnaviridae, exhibits a complex epidemiological profile characterized by high environmental stability, multiple transmission routes, a broad host range, and a remarkable capacity for subclinical persistence that complicates control efforts. Understanding the intricate dynamics of IPNV transmission and its spatiotemporal distribution is not merely an academic exercise; it is a prerequisite for designing effective surveillance programs, implementing biosecurity measures, and interpreting the outcomes of genetic selection and vaccination strategies that have been deployed with variable success across the industry.

Global Distribution and Host Range

IPNV is truly ubiquitous in its distribution, having been reported from salmonid farming operations on every continent where such aquaculture exists, with the notable exception of Australia [12]. The virus has been isolated from a staggering diversity of hosts, encompassing not only its primary economic targets, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), and brown trout (Salmo trutta), but also from at least 80 other fish species and, critically, from aquatic invertebrates [49]. This expansive host range is a cornerstone of its epidemiological success. The identification of IPNV in seemingly resistant species such as tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in Kenya, where isolates were found to be genetically identical to European strains, underscores the role of asymptomatic carriers in long-distance dissemination, likely through the international trade of live fish or eggs [50]. Furthermore, experimental infections have demonstrated that even non-salmonid species like zebrafish (Danio rerio) can sustain viral replication, albeit with lower mortality (40%), while bivalve mollusks such as the swan mussel (Anodonta cygnea) can act as passive vectors, accumulating and maintaining infectious virus for at least 35 days without showing signs of disease [49]. This ability of IPNV to persist in non-target species and environmental reservoirs creates a formidable challenge for eradication efforts, as the virus can be reintroduced into naive salmonid populations from seemingly innocuous sources.

Genogroup Distribution and Phylogeography

The genetic diversity of IPNV is structured into at least seven distinct genogroups (1–7), which exhibit marked differences in geographic distribution, host preference, and virulence [4, 14]. The epidemiological landscape is dominated by genogroups 1 and 5, which are responsible for the vast majority of clinical outbreaks in farmed salmonids. In Europe, genogroup 5 (serotype Sp) has historically been considered the most virulent, particularly in Atlantic salmon post-smolts, and is the predominant genogroup in countries like Poland, Turkey, and Iran [13, 23]. However, the situation is more nuanced. In Finland, for instance, genogroup 2 is the most widespread and is uniquely associated with clinical disease in field observations, despite a Norwegian genogroup 5 isolate causing only subclinical infection in the same host species [14]. This host-species-dependent difference in virulence is a critical epidemiological feature, suggesting that viral fitness and pathogenicity are not absolute properties of a genogroup but are modulated by the specific host-virus combination.

In Asia, particularly China, passive surveillance from 2017–2020 revealed that genogroup 1 is the dominant circulating lineage, with genogroup 5 isolates being far less common [10]. Divergence time analyses indicate that Chinese genogroup 1 isolates likely originated from Japanese strains around 1985, with a subsequent diversification event around 2006, suggesting a relatively recent introduction and subsequent adaptation to local rainbow trout populations [10]. In South America, Chile, the world’s second-largest salmon producer, harbors both genogroups 1 and 5, with a notable preferential association of genogroup 5 with Atlantic salmon [18]. The co-circulation of multiple genogroups within the same geographic region raises the specter of genetic reassortment, a phenomenon that has been documented in Scottish isolates where segment A from genogroup III was found reassorted with segment B from genogroup II [17]. Such reassortment events can generate novel viral phenotypes with unpredictable virulence and transmission characteristics, further complicating the epidemiological picture.

Transmission Dynamics: Vertical and Horizontal Routes

The transmission of IPNV is a multifaceted process involving both vertical and horizontal pathways, each with distinct implications for disease control. Vertical transmission is a well-documented and epidemiologically critical route, particularly for rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon. The virus can be shed in both ovarian fluid and milt from apparently healthy broodstock, leading to infection of progeny at the earliest life stages [19, 51]. This mechanism allows IPNV to persist within a hatchery population across generations, effectively bypassing external biosecurity barriers. Molecular tracing studies have provided definitive proof of this pathway; by comparing viral sequences from hatchery fish with those from the same cohort after transfer to marine grow-out sites, researchers demonstrated that the smolt carries the infection from the hatchery to the sea, rather than acquiring it de novo in the marine environment [51]. This finding has profound implications for disease management, as it indicates that control measures must be applied at the broodstock and hatchery level to prevent the seeding of marine farms.

Horizontal transmission occurs through multiple mechanisms, including direct contact between infected and naive fish, exposure to contaminated water, and ingestion of infected tissues or feces. The cohabitation challenge model, which mimics natural horizontal transmission by placing naive fish in direct contact with experimentally infected shedder fish, has been instrumental in quantifying this route. Optimized models using the highly virulent Norwegian Sp strain NVI015-TA have demonstrated that a shedder proportion of just 12.5% of the total population is sufficient to induce >75% mortality in naive cohabitants, highlighting the efficiency of waterborne transmission [20]. The virus is shed in high titers in feces and can be detected in the water column, where its non-enveloped, icosahedral capsid confers exceptional environmental stability [1, 4]. This stability allows IPNV to persist in biofilms, sediments, and even in the tissues of invertebrate vectors like mussels for extended periods, creating a reservoir of infectious virus that can initiate new outbreaks long after the removal of clinically affected fish [49].

Epidemiological Patterns and Risk Factors

The clinical expression of IPNV infection is highly age-dependent, with the most severe outbreaks occurring in fry and fingerlings during the first few weeks of exogenous feeding. Mortality rates in this age group can exceed 80–90%, causing catastrophic losses [4, 5]. In Atlantic salmon, a second peak of susceptibility occurs during the post-smolt stage, shortly after transfer to seawater, a period of immense physiological stress [4, 8]. The epidemiological risk is therefore concentrated in the hatchery and early marine phases, and management practices during these windows are critical determinants of outbreak probability.

The introduction of genetically resistant Atlantic salmon, which carry a major quantitative trait locus (QTL) on chromosome 26, was initially hailed as a triumph of selective breeding, dramatically reducing IPN outbreaks in Norway and Chile [11, 31]. However, recent epidemiological surveillance has revealed a troubling trend: outbreaks are re-emerging in genetically resistant stocks. In Chile, despite the widespread use of resistant fish since 2019, IPN outbreaks in the freshwater phase have been increasing, with mortality reaching 0.4% per day and cumulative losses of 0.4–3.5% [8]. Similarly, in Norway and Scotland, new IPNV variants have been isolated from clinically affected, genetically resistant fish [9, 11]. Whole-genome sequencing of these emergent variants has identified a unique set of amino acid substitutions in the hypervariable domain of the VP2 capsid protein, suggesting that the virus is evolving under the selective pressure exerted by the host’s genetic resistance [11]. This represents a classic evolutionary arms race, where the host’s genetic barrier is being circumvented by viral adaptation, underscoring the need for continuous genomic surveillance of circulating field strains.

Co-infection is a pervasive epidemiological reality in aquaculture, and IPNV’s interactions with other pathogens profoundly shape disease outcomes. Experimental co-infections with infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) have revealed a complex, time-dependent relationship. When IPNV infection precedes or occurs simultaneously with IHNV challenge, it significantly inhibits IHNV replication across multiple tissues, including the brain, gill, heart, liver, spleen, and head kidney, and reduces overall mortality [32, 41]. This interference appears to be mediated by the induction of a robust antiviral state, characterized by upregulation of interferon and interferon-stimulated genes, which is detrimental to the incoming IHNV [32]. Conversely, when IHNV infection is established first, it can enhance IPNV replication, with viral titers increasing up to 40-fold in cell culture models [36]. This synergistic effect is dependent on the infection interval and suggests that IHNV-induced immunosuppression or cellular damage creates a permissive environment for IPNV. In the field, co-infections with IHNV and IPNV have been linked to unusually high mortality events in Chinese rainbow trout farms, where extensive necrosis was observed in major organs [39]. Furthermore, IPNV co-infection with the bacterium Yersinia ruckeri has been shown to suppress lysozyme activity, potentially predisposing fish to secondary bacterial infections [48]. These complex, context-dependent interactions mean that the epidemiological impact of IPNV cannot be assessed in isolation; it must be considered within the broader polymicrobial context of the farm environment.

Prevalence, Persistence, and Carrier State

A defining epidemiological feature of IPNV is its ability to establish a persistent, subclinical carrier state in surviving fish. These carriers show no overt signs of disease but continue to shed virus intermittently, serving as a silent reservoir for horizontal transmission to naive cohorts [17, 53]. The prevalence of this carrier state can be remarkably high. In a serological survey of rainbow trout farms in Turkey, IPNV-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected in 7.5% of individual serum samples and in 61.1% of the 18 farms surveyed, indicating widespread exposure and persistent infection [52]. In Kenya, IPNV was detected by PCR in all eight farms sampled, with infection ratios ranging from 0.3 to 0.78, despite the absence of any clinical signs [50]. Similarly, in Peru, a country that was considered IPNV-free until 2019, surveillance revealed prevalence values of 4.05% in Cusco and 3.81% in Puno, demonstrating that the virus can be introduced and become established even in nascent aquaculture industries [5]. The carrier state is not merely a passive persistence; it involves active viral replication at low levels, and the virus can be reactivated by stress factors such as handling, crowding, or poor water quality, leading to renewed shedding and clinical outbreaks [4].

The molecular basis for this persistence is multifaceted. IPNV has been shown to epigenetically modulate the host immune response, specifically by altering DNA methylation patterns and histone acetylation at the promoters of key antiviral genes such as IFN1 and IFNγ2 [29]. In RTS11 monocyte/macrophage cells, infection led to dynamic changes in promoter methylation and histone acetylation, effectively dampening the interferon response and creating a cellular environment conducive to viral persistence [29]. Furthermore, the virus can manipulate cellular processes like autophagy to its advantage; IPNV infection induces autophagy in CHSE-214 cells, and pharmacological induction of autophagy with rapamycin enhances viral replication, while inhibition with 3-methyladenine suppresses it [42]. This subversion of host cell machinery allows IPNV to maintain a low-level, non-cytopathic infection that evades immune clearance.

Virulence Determinants and Evolutionary Dynamics

The epidemiological trajectory of IPNV is intimately linked to its genetic evolution, particularly within the VP2 capsid protein, which is the primary determinant of virulence and antigenicity. The amino acid motif at positions 217 and 221 of VP2 has been extensively studied as a molecular marker of virulence. The highly virulent motif (T217A221) is consistently associated with clinical outbreaks and high mortality, while the avirulent or low-virulence motif (P217T221) is found in subclinical or persistently infected fish [13, 16, 19]. This relationship has been validated across multiple host species and geographic regions. For instance, in Atlantic salmon, isolates from clinical outbreaks in Norway and Scotland uniformly encoded the T217A221 motif, while isolates from subclinical infections in low-disease-pressure areas encoded P217T221 [19]. However, the correlation is not absolute. Iranian IPNV isolates from genogroup 5, which caused moderate mortality (20–60%) in rainbow trout, were found to harbor the P217T221 motif typically associated with avirulence [13]. This discrepancy highlights that virulence is polygenic and modulated by other residues in VP2, as well as by host genetics and environmental factors.

The evolutionary rate of IPNV is notably lower than that of many other RNA viruses, with mean rates of approximately 1.70 × 10⁻⁴ and 1.45 × 10⁻⁴ nucleotide substitutions per site per year for the VP1 and pVP2 genes, respectively [16]. This slow evolution has been attributed to the strong selective constraints imposed by the double-stranded RNA genome and the functional constraints of the capsid. However, despite this low rate, the virus is clearly capable of adaptive evolution under selective pressure. In Scotland, analysis of 57 isolates collected over three decades revealed that the VP2 gene has undergone positive selection in the variable region of the main antigenic site, and that the virus has adapted its codon usage to better match the tRNA pool of its salmonid host [17]. Furthermore, the under-representation of CpG dinucleotides in the IPNV genome is thought to be an evolutionary strategy to minimize detection by host innate immune receptors, such as Toll-like receptor 9 [17]. These findings indicate that IPNV is engaged in a continuous process of co-evolution with its host, and that the emergence of new variants capable of breaking through genetic resistance or vaccine-induced immunity is an ongoing and predictable threat.

Economic and Regulatory Impact

The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) lists IPNV as a notifiable pathogen due to its significant economic impact on international trade in live fish and eggs. The virus is endemic in most salmonid-producing countries, and its presence can lead to trade restrictions, quarantine measures, and substantial financial losses from mortality, reduced growth, and increased management costs. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations recognizes IPN as one of the most important viral diseases constraining the sustainable development of global aquaculture. The economic burden is particularly acute in the rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon sectors, where losses can reach 80–90% of stock in severe outbreaks [4]. The development and widespread adoption of genetic resistance markers and commercial vaccines have mitigated some of this impact, but the recent emergence of vaccine- and resistance-breaking variants [8, 9, 11] serves as a stark reminder that IPNV remains a dynamic and formidable adversary. Continued investment in genomic surveillance, the development of next-generation vaccines targeting conserved epitopes, and the implementation of robust biosecurity protocols that address both vertical and horizontal transmission pathways are essential to maintain control over this pervasive pathogen.

Clinical Signs and Pathological Features

Infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is a highly contagious, acute viral disease of salmonid fish, recognized globally as a major constraint to aquaculture production, particularly during the fry and post-smolt stages [4, 12, 55]. The clinical presentation and pathological lesions associated with infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) infection are profoundly influenced by a complex interplay of host factors (species, age, genetic background), viral factors (genogroup, virulence motif, route of entry), and environmental conditions [4, 55]. The disease is characterized by a spectrum ranging from peracute, high-mortality epizootics in naïve fry to subclinical, persistent infections in older fish that serve as asymptomatic carriers [4, 12, 55].

Spectrum of Disease and Mortality Patterns

The most devastating clinical expression of IPNV infection is observed in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fry and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) post-smolts, where mortality rates can frequently reach 80–90% of affected stocks [4, 5]. The disease course is typically rapid, with mortality commencing within 3–7 days post-exposure under experimental conditions [15, 54]. However, the virulence of the infecting strain is a critical determinant of mortality. Field evidence and experimental infections have consistently demonstrated that certain genogroups, particularly genogroup 5 (serotype Sp), are associated with higher virulence in European salmonid farming [14, 18], whereas genogroup 1 isolates have been shown to cause greater cumulative mortality in rainbow trout in other geographical contexts, such as Chile [15]. Conversely, isolates from genogroup 6, such as those identified from sea trout in Lake Vänern, Sweden, induce only mild subclinical infections with low pathogenicity [2]. This genogroup-dependent variation is starkly illustrated by the mortality patterns in controlled trials: a Norwegian genogroup 5 isolate induced negligible mortality in rainbow trout fry, while a Finnish genogroup 5 isolate caused the highest cumulative mortality in the same host species, underscoring a host species-dependent, virus isolate-related difference in virulence [14]. In the field, the cumulative mortality during outbreaks in genetically resistant Atlantic salmon has been documented to range from 0.4% to 3.5%, with a daily mortality rate of up to 0.4% [8], which, while lower than in naïve stocks, still represents significant economic losses. In a challenge study using a virulent Norwegian Sp strain (NVI015-TA) with the T²¹⁷A²²¹ motif, a cohabitation model was optimized to generate mortality exceeding 75% in unvaccinated control fish, demonstrating the potential for extreme pathogenicity [20].

Behavioral and External Clinical Signs

The clinical signs of acute IPN are both characteristic and indicative of a severe systemic infection. Affected fish typically exhibit progressive lethargy, anorexia, and a loss of equilibrium, often leading to abnormal swimming patterns, including spiraling or whirling motions before death [4, 49]. A profound darkening of the skin (melanization) is a frequently reported sign, likely secondary to stress and adrenal stimulation [2, 13, 49]. Exophthalmia (pop-eye) and abdominal distension due to ascites are common findings [13, 54]. A pathognomonic external sign, particularly in fry, is the presence of a white or yellow, mucoid, caseous cast in the hindgut, which is often trailed from the vent [4, 13, 49, 54]. This sign reflects the underlying acute catarrhal enteritis that is a hallmark of the disease. Pale gills and hemorrhages at the base of the fins or in the periorbital region may also be observed in some cases, though these are not as consistent as the pancreatic lesions [4].

Gross and Histopathological Lesions

The pathological basis of IPN is a severe, acute necrotizing inflammation of the exocrine pancreas, which is the primary target organ. On gross post-mortem examination, the pancreas appears edematous, with petechial hemorrhages, and may be difficult to discern due to necrosis [4, 12, 39]. The stomach and anterior intestine are often distended with a clear or milky fluid, and the lumen of the posterior intestine, particularly the pyloric caeca, may be filled with the characteristic yellow, caseous material [4, 12]. The liver can appear pale, fatty, and congested, and the spleen and kidney may be enlarged (splenomegaly and renomegaly) [4, 39].

Histopathologically, the earliest and most specific lesion is acinar cell necrosis of the exocrine pancreas [4, 19, 55]. This begins with focal necrosis of individual acinar cells, rapidly progressing to extensive, confluent coagulative necrosis that can involve the entire organ [4, 19, 39]. Affected acinar cells show pyknosis, karyorrhexis, and a loss of zymogen granules, leading to a "ghost-like" appearance of the tissue [4, 39]. There is a concurrent, often minimal, mononuclear inflammatory infiltrate [4, 55]. In severe cases, the necrosis may extend into the surrounding adipose and connective tissue. The intestinal mucosa shows signs of acute catarrhal enteritis, with sloughing of the epithelial lining, particularly in the posterior intestine, and a corresponding accumulation of necrotic debris and inflammatory cells in the lumen, forming the caseous plug [4, 12, 13]. Renal interstitial necrosis and focal hepatocellular necrosis are also frequently observed, particularly in more protracted cases [4, 39, 49]. In co-infections with infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), the histopathology can be compounded, with severe extensive necrosis observed across multiple major organs in moribund fish [39].

Molecular Determinants of Virulence and Pathology

The genetic basis for virulence in IPNV has been extensively studied, focusing on the outer capsid protein VP2, encoded by segment A. The amino acid motif at positions 217 and 221 within the VP2 hypervariable region has been identified as a critical determinant of virulence [4, 11, 16, 19]. The highly virulent motif is defined by threonine at position 217 (T²¹⁷) and alanine at position 221 (A²²¹) [4, 19]. This T²¹⁷A²²¹ motif is consistently associated with clinical disease and high mortality in Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout [4, 19, 20, 55]. In contrast, an avirulent or low-virulence motif characterized by a proline at position 217 (P²¹⁷) and a threonine at position 221 (T²²¹) has been linked to subclinical or low-pathogenicity infections [4, 13, 16, 19]. For instance, all Italian IPNV isolates examined over a 40-year period harbored the P²¹⁷T²²¹ motif and were associated with reduced virulence in trout [16]. Similarly, a Swedish genogroup 6 isolate with a P²¹⁷T²²¹ motif caused only mild infection in Atlantic salmon, sea trout, and rainbow trout [2]. This motif is so strongly correlated with attenuation that its presence is used as a genetic fingerprint for low-virulence strains [19]. However, exceptions exist; IPNV-positive fish from a moderate mortality outbreak (20–60%) in Iranian trout farms were found to carry the P²¹⁷T²²¹ motif, suggesting that other viral or host factors can modulate virulence [13].

Further resolution of virulence determinants has been provided by detailed sequence analyses of VP2. A study comparing isolates from clinical and subclinical infections in Atlantic salmon identified a comprehensive VP2 fingerprint: the highly virulent motif was I⁶⁴T¹³⁷T²¹⁷A²²¹T²⁴⁷V²⁵²T²⁸¹N²⁸²A³¹⁹, whereas the subclinical fingerprint was V⁶⁴A¹³⁷P²¹⁷T²²¹A²⁴⁷N²⁵²S²⁸¹D²⁸²E³¹⁹ [19]. This highlights that multiple residues across the VP2 protein collectively contribute to the full viral pathogenic potential. The emergence of new IPNV variants capable of causing mortality even in genetically resistant Atlantic salmon has been documented. In Western Norway, a novel variant was identified with a VP2 sequence similar to the avirulent form but possessing unique amino acid residues in the hypervariable domain, which likely conferred an enhanced capacity to evade host defenses in fish bred for resistance [11]. Similarly, in Scotland, a new variant emerged from a main serotype, possibly under the selective pressure of vaccination and host genetics [9]. The 2021–2022 outbreaks in genetically resistant Chilean Atlantic salmon were caused by a genogroup 5 variant with 11 mutations in its VP2 protein, further confirming the ongoing evolution of IPNV towards circumventing host resistance [8].

Role of Host Genetics in Pathological Outcomes

The host's genetic background is a powerful modulator of disease severity. A major quantitative trait locus (QTL) on Atlantic salmon chromosome 26, largely explained by the nae1 (NEDD-8 activating enzyme 1) gene, has a profound impact on resistance to IPNV [31, 45]. Genetically resistant salmon demonstrate a markedly different response to infection compared to susceptible fish. While both can become infected and harbor significant viral loads, the susceptible phenotype is characterized by a massive, yet ineffective, upregulation of genes related to cytokine activity and the inflammatory response [45]. In contrast, resistant fish mount a more moderate, macrophage-mediated inflammatory response that appears to limit viral replication and prevent the onset of fulminant pathology [45]. This differential gene expression explains why mortality can be negligible in resistant families while reaching catastrophic levels in susceptible cohorts under the same viral challenge [31, 45]. In rainbow trout, genetic resistance is a polygenic trait, with heritability estimates for survival ranging from 0.21 to 0.25, and genomic selection is being used to improve resistance [28, 38]. A genome-wide association study in rainbow trout identified a SNP on chromosome 5 linked to the SENP5 gene, which may also play a role in the host-pathogen interaction [38].

Subclinical Infections and the Carrier State

A critical feature of IPNV epidemiology is its ability to establish a persistent, subclinical infection in survivors of an acute outbreak or in adult fish [4, 12, 55]. These carrier fish show no clinical signs but serve as a long-term reservoir of the virus, shedding it into the environment intermittently [4, 12]. Histologically, such fish may lack the acute necrotizing lesions of the pancreas but can harbor the virus in various tissues, including the kidney, spleen, and particularly the hematopoietic tissues [4, 12, 55]. This carrier state is a major mechanism of vertical and horizontal transmission, perpetuating the virus within and between fish populations [4, 12, 51]. Even in the absence of overt disease, expression of antiviral immune genes, such as IFN-1 and Mx-1, can be detected in survivors, indicating an ongoing, low-level host-virus interaction [45]. This subclinical pathology is ecologically significant, as it allows the virus to persist undetected in wild populations, such as the low prevalence (0.2–0.5%) in feral salmonids in Lake Vänern, Sweden [2].

Pathological Features of Co-Infections

IPNV frequently participates in complex co-infections with other viral and bacterial pathogens, which can dramatically alter the pathological outcomes. Co-infection with IHNV is a common and economically devastating scenario in rainbow trout farms [30, 32, 34, 39]. The nature of the interaction is highly dependent on the timing and order of infection. Experimental studies have shown that a primary or simultaneous IPNV infection potently inhibits IHNV replication in vivo, leading to significantly lower mortality in co-infected fish compared to those infected with IHNV alone [32, 34]. This interference is mediated at the early stage of IHNV entry, likely through the downregulation of clathrin and dynamin-2 genes crucial for IHNV invasion [41]. Paradoxically, in vitro studies in CHSE-214 cells have demonstrated that IHNV can enhance IPNV replication in a time-dependent manner, particularly when IHNV follows IPNV infection [36]. This suggests that at a cellular level, IPNV may create a permissive environment for IHNV, while at the organismal level, the IPNV-induced interferon response can restrict the rhabdovirus [32, 41]. Co-infection with viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) also shows that IPNV can positively affect the course of VHSV infection, lowering mortality and reducing apoptosis [34].

The immunosuppressive effects of IPNV infection also predispose fish to secondary bacterial infections, such as yersiniosis caused by Yersinia ruckeri [48]. IPNV infection is known to suppress lysozyme activity, a key component of the non-specific immune system, thereby increasing the susceptibility to bacterial pathogens and often worsening the clinical outcome [48]. These pathological interactions highlight that IPNV, even when not the primary pathogen, can act as a significant co-factor in the disease ecology of farmed salmonids.

Diagnostic Methods for IPNV Detection

The accurate and timely detection of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) is of paramount critical significance for effective disease management in global salmonid aquaculture, a sector of immense economic importance. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes IPN as a notifiable disease, underscoring the need for robust, validated diagnostic protocols to support surveillance, trade, and control programs [12, 55]. IPNV, a non-enveloped bi-segmented double-stranded RNA virus of the family Birnaviridae, presents unique challenges for detection due to its ability to establish persistent, asymptomatic infections in carrier fish, its high genetic diversity across seven genogroups, and its variable virulence, which ranges from subclinical to highly pathogenic strains causing up to 90% mortality in fry [4, 14, 16]. The diagnostic armamentarium for IPNV has evolved substantially from classical virological methods to sophisticated molecular, genomic, and nanotechnological platforms, each offering distinct advantages and limitations for specific applications in research, epidemiological surveillance, and commercial aquaculture health management.

Classical Virus Isolation and Cell Culture

The historical cornerstone of IPNV diagnosis remains virus isolation in susceptible cell lines, a technique that provides definitive evidence of replicating, infectious virus. The canonical cell lines for IPNV propagation include the Chinook salmon embryo cell line (CHSE-214) and the rainbow trout gonad cell line (RTG-2), both of which demonstrate characteristic cytopathic effects (CPE) upon infection [2, 8, 13, 23, 49]. The CPE typically manifests as rounding, granulation, and detachment of the cell monolayer, observable within 3-7 days depending on viral load and isolate virulence [54]. The SHK-1 cell line, derived from Atlantic salmon head kidney macrophages, has also been successfully employed, offering a cellular environment that may be more relevant for studying host-pathogen interactions in immune cells [22]. The process involves homogenization of target organs, most frequently the head kidney, spleen, or pancreas, filtration, and inoculation onto confluent monolayers, followed by blind passage if initial results are negative [2, 19]. While cell culture is highly specific and allows for subsequent serotyping and phenotypic characterization, its sensitivity can be limited by sample quality, the presence of cytotoxic substances in tissue homogenates, and the existence of non-cytopathic or slowly replicating strains [9]. Furthermore, the technique is labor-intensive, requires substantial time to produce results (typically 7-14 days), and demands specialized facilities and trained personnel, making it less suitable for high-throughput screening or rapid on-farm decision-making [62].

Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and Quantitative Real-Time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR)

The advent of molecular diagnostics has revolutionized IPNV detection, with RT-PCR and its quantitative variant (qRT-PCR) becoming the gold standard methods for sensitivity, specificity, and speed. These assays target conserved regions of the IPNV genome, most frequently the VP2 gene (encoding the major capsid protein) or the VP4/VP3 junction on segment A [3, 5, 13, 32, 34, 39, 50]. The superior analytical sensitivity of RT-PCR allows for the detection of viral RNA in asymptomatic carrier fish with low viral loads, a feat often impossible by cell culture [19, 28]. A critical advancement has been the development and validation of genotype-specific or universal primer sets that can detect across the diverse genogroups of IPNV (genogroups 1-7), which is essential given the geographic and host-associated distribution of different strains [10, 14, 15, 23]. In Chile, a major salmon-producing nation, inter-laboratory ring trials using qRT-PCR have demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity in most participating laboratories when standardized protocols are followed, although issues with repeatability and inter-laboratory variability in Cycle threshold (Ct) values have been identified, highlighting the critical need for harmonized reference methods and universal standards [62]. The quantification capability of qRT-PCR is particularly powerful, enabling researchers to assess viral load dynamics during infection trials, vaccine efficacy studies, and co-infection scenarios. For instance, studies have shown that viral load is a moderately heritable trait (h² = 0.23) and exhibits a favorable negative genetic correlation with survival, suggesting that fish with lower viral RNA levels are more likely to survive challenge [28]. The application of qRT-PCR has been instrumental in demonstrating tissue tropism and temporal distribution of IPNV, revealing that viral RNA can be detected in the brain, gill, heart, liver, spleen, and head kidney following intraperitoneal injection, with genogroups 1 and 5 achieving higher loads than genogroup 7 [7]. A recent landmark study employed single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), a revolutionary extension of transcriptomic analysis, to profile the early response of rainbow trout peripheral blood leukocytes to IPNV exposure in vitro [56]. This technology allowed for the simultaneous measurement of thousands of genes in individual cells, revealing that monocytes and neutrophils exhibit the highest number of upregulated protein-coding genes in response to IPNV, while different B cell subsets show a fainter response [56]. While scRNA-seq is not a routine diagnostic method, its application provides an unprecedented, high-resolution perspective on the cellular and molecular dynamics of the host's early antiviral response, potentially identifying novel biomarkers for susceptibility or resistance.

Genomic Sequencing and Phylogenetic Analysis

The characterization of IPNV isolates through nucleotide sequencing has become indispensable for epidemiological tracing, virulence prediction, and understanding viral evolution. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, including Illumina platforms combined with sequence-independent single-primer amplification (SISPA), have enabled the rapid determination of complete genomes from clinical samples without the need for prior cell culture adaptation [9, 11]. Phylogenetic analysis based on the VP2 gene has been the primary tool for classifying IPNV isolates into genogroups 1-7, with groups 1, 2, and 5 being predominant in Europe and the Americas, while genogroup 6 has been identified in Scandinavian wild trout populations [2, 14]. This molecular epidemiology is crucial for tracing the origins of outbreaks, particularly given evidence that the virus can be transmitted vertically from broodstock to fry and laterally between farm sites [51]. The VP2 sequence, especially the hypervariable region (HVR), contains well-characterized virulence determinants. A paradigm shift in our understanding occurred with the discovery that the amino acid motif at positions 217 and 221 (Pro217-Thr221 vs. Thr217-Ala221) is strongly associated with low and high virulence, respectively, in Atlantic salmon [19]. However, a crucial nuance is that this correlation is not absolute. For example, Iranian isolates from genogroup 5 with the “low virulence” P217T221 motif still caused moderate mortality (20-60%) in rainbow trout, while a Norwegian isolate with the same motif but additional unique mutations in the VP2 HVR caused high mortality in genetically resistant Atlantic salmon, suggesting the emergence of immune escape variants [11, 13]. Furthermore, a virulent isolate from Italy harbored the P217T221 motif, indicating that host species, environmental factors, and other genomic determinants can override simple sequence-based predictions [16]. Whole-genome sequencing has also revealed the prevalence of reassortment events, where the two genomic segments (A and B) originate from different parental viruses, a phenomenon that complicates phylogenetic classification and may generate novel virulence phenotypes [17].

Serological and Immunological Detection Methods

The detection of host immune responses to IPNV provides an alternative diagnostic approach, particularly useful for surveillance of past or persistent infections. The serum neutralization (SN) test has been a longstanding method for detecting neutralizing antibodies and for serotyping IPNV isolates into serotypes (e.g., Sp, Ab, He), though its utility is waning due to the emergence of antigenic variants that circumvent standard typing sera [3, 9, 37, 52]. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) using monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies against the VP2 protein offer a more rapid and high-throughput alternative, and have been used to demonstrate seroprevalence in farmed populations [44, 50, 60]. A coagglutination test utilizing protein A-bearing Staphylococcus aureus cells coated with anti-IPNV antibodies has been developed as a simple, rapid, and cost-effective field-side test, though its sensitivity is generally lower than molecular methods [63]. A particularly promising development is the use of recombinant human apoferritin heavy chain (hAFN-H) nanoprobes engineered to display protein-G (for antibody binding) and 6×His tags (for signal amplification), which have been incorporated into sophisticated biosensor platforms [58, 60]. These include a label-free impedance biosensor using gold electrodes conjugated with hAFN-H nanoprobes, achieving a detection limit of 2.69 TCID50/mL, and a lateral flow chip assay with a detection limit of 0.88 TCID50/mL, offering a rapid, point-of-care diagnostic possibility [58, 60]. Complementing serology, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using antibodies specific to IPNV VP2 or VP3 allows for the visualization of viral antigen in situ within formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues, such as the exocrine pancreas and kidney, providing valuable pathological confirmation of infection and cellular tropism [50].

Histopathology and Ultrastructural Examination

For over half a century, histopathological examination has been a fundamental tool for diagnosing IPN disease, even if it cannot replace virological or molecular confirmation. The characteristic microscopic lesions are centered on the exocrine pancreas, where there is extensive necrosis, loss of acinar architecture, and replacement by cellular debris and inflammatory infiltrates [2, 4, 8, 13, 39]. The hematopoietic tissue of the kidney and spleen also undergoes severe necrosis, and in advanced cases, focal to extensive necrotic lesions may be observed in the liver, brain, and intestinal mucosa [19, 54]. Although pathognomonic in acute outbreaks in naive fry, histopathology is less reliable in subclinical or chronic infections and cannot differentiate between IPNV and other pathogens causing similar necrotic lesions, necessitating ancillary testing.

Advanced and Emerging Detection Technologies

The frontier of IPNV diagnostics is being shaped by nanotechnology and molecular biology. The use of bioengineered apoferritin nanoprobes represents a paradigm shift in signal amplification, enabling detection at extremely low viral titers (sub-1 TCID50/mL) in real fish samples [58, 60]. These platforms offer the potential for rapid, portable, and inexpensive diagnostics that could be deployed directly on farms. Genetic marker-assisted selection for IPNV resistance, while not a diagnostic tool per se, is a powerful indirect method for reducing disease prevalence. The identification of a major quantitative trait locus (QTL) on Atlantic salmon chromosome 26, underpinned by the nae1 (NEDD-8 activating enzyme 1) gene, has enabled marker-based breeding programs that have dramatically reduced IPN outbreaks in some regions [31]. This genetic approach is now being complemented by CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tools, which have been utilized to both confirm the role of nae1 in resistance and to create specific gene knockouts in cell lines for functional studies [27, 31]. The application of reverse genetics systems to generate recombinant IPNV strains expressing reporter genes (e.g., GFP) or heterologous antigens provides sophisticated tools for studying viral replication, pathogenesis, and for developing live attenuated vaccines that could also serve as diagnostic antigens [57, 59, 61].

Prevention, Control, and Vaccination Strategies

The control of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) in salmonid aquaculture represents one of the most complex challenges in aquatic animal health management, not merely because of the virus’s global distribution and economic impact, but due to its remarkable capacity for persistence, its ability to subvert host immune responses through sophisticated epigenetic and translational mechanisms, and the continuous emergence of novel variants that erode existing control measures. A comprehensive strategy must therefore integrate vaccination, genetic selection for host resistance, stringent biosecurity protocols, and, in the future, potentially the deployment of antiviral compounds, all informed by a deep understanding of the virus’s molecular virology and epidemiology.

### Vaccination Strategies: From Inactivated Whole Virus to Next-Generation Platforms

Vaccination remains the cornerstone of specific prophylaxis against IPNV, yet the field has evolved considerably from early inactivated preparations to a diverse array of recombinant, vectored, and DNA-based platforms, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The development of effective vaccines is complicated by the antigenic diversity among IPNV genogroups, the virus’s ability to establish persistent infections, and the need for delivery methods suitable for mass vaccination of juvenile fish.

Inactivated and Subunit Vaccines: Classic inactivated vaccines, typically prepared with β-propiolactone (BPL) treatment of whole virus, have demonstrated efficacy in inducing both innate and adaptive immune responses. For instance, a BPL-inactivated genogroup I vaccine in rainbow trout significantly reduced viral loads and stimulated IFN-1, Mx-1, CD4, CD8, and IgM expression, with neutralizing antibodies persisting up to 60 days post-immunization [3]. A comparable inactivated whole-particle vaccine (IPNV-WPV) in Turkey achieved a relative percent survival (RPS) of 79%, outperforming an E. coli-expressed recombinant VP2 subunit vaccine (RPS 70%) in the same study [37]. While inactivated vaccines offer safety advantages, no risk of reversion to virulence, they often require adjuvants, multiple doses, and injection delivery, which is labor-intensive and impractical for large-scale fry vaccination. Subunit vaccines based on the major capsid protein VP2 are attractive because VP2 contains the primary neutralizing epitopes. However, the lower RPS observed with the E. coli-expressed VP2 compared to whole virus suggests that conformational epitopes critical for optimal protection may be lost during prokaryotic expression [37]. Innovative approaches to improve subunit vaccine yield and immunogenicity include expression in the microalga Nannochloropsis oceanica, where codon-optimized VP2 reached 4.4% of total soluble protein, offering a low-cost, oral delivery platform [65]. Similarly, surface display of VP2 on Bacillus subtilis spores via translational fusion to the coat protein CotY retained the immunostimulatory properties of the probiotic and induced specific anti-IPNV antibodies following intraperitoneal or oral administration, representing a promising oral vaccine vehicle [33].

Live Vectored and Recombinant Vaccines: The limitations of inactivated and subunit vaccines, particularly the need for injection and suboptimal mucosal immunity, have driven the development of live vectored vaccines. These platforms exploit attenuated viral or bacterial vectors to deliver IPNV antigens, eliciting robust cellular and humoral immunity. A replication-defective recombinant adenovirus co-expressing IHNV glycoprotein G and IPNV VP2, administered by immersion, achieved an RPS of 78.95% against IPNV in rainbow trout, with upregulated innate and adaptive immune genes and neutralizing antibodies [30]. This approach benefits from the adenovirus’s ability to transduce fish cells without replicating, ensuring safety while inducing strong immune responses. The immersion route is a major advantage for vaccinating large numbers of small fry.

Recombinant DNA technology has also enabled the construction of chimeric viruses. Several studies have engineered recombinant infectious hematopoietic necrosis viruses (rIHNV) expressing IPNV VP2 as a bivalent vaccine. Using IHNV as a backbone, VP2 was inserted either in place of the NV gene or as an additional expression cassette. One such recombinant, rIHNV-N438A-ΔNV-VP2, yielded an RPS of 88.9% against IPNV serotype Sp and 81.5% against wild-type IHNV in rainbow trout, with high neutralizing antibody titers [59]. Another rIHNV-VP2 construct achieved approximately 65% RPS against both viruses [61]. A particularly elegant approach used the IHNV U genogroup Blk94 as a reverse genetics vector to express VP2, resulting in stable biological characteristics and significant reduction of IPNV loads in liver, anterior kidney, and spleen (up to 44.2-fold), alongside upregulation of IFN-γ, IFN-1, Mx-1, CD4, CD8, IgM, and IgT [57]. The major concern with live attenuated viral vectors is the potential for reversion to virulence, especially in immunocompromised fish, necessitating careful safety testing.

DNA Vaccines: DNA vaccination offers the advantages of inducing both humoral and cell-mediated immunity without the risks associated with live vectors. An intramuscularly delivered bivalent DNA vaccine encoding IHNV glycoprotein and IPNV VP2-VP3 achieved remarkable protection: 6% cumulative mortality against IHNV challenge versus 90-94% in controls, and a 531-fold reduction in IPNV load in the anterior kidney at 30 days post-vaccination [44]. The vaccine also protected against co-infection, with cumulative mortality of only 6.67% compared to 50% in mock-vaccinated fish. Importantly, neutralizing antibodies (titers ≥160) against both viruses were detected at 30 and 60 days post-vaccination. Oral delivery of a VP2-encoding plasmid encapsulated in alginate microspheres prevented the establishment of the carrier state in rainbow trout survivors, with undetectable IPNV transcripts and no recoverable infectious virus at 45 days post-challenge, whereas virus control fish remained persistently infected [53]. This finding is particularly significant given that carrier fish are a major reservoir for horizontal transmission in farm settings.

### Genetic Selection: Harnessing Host Resistance

The discovery of a major quantitative trait locus (QTL) on Atlantic salmon chromosome 26 that explains a substantial proportion of genetic variation in IPNV resistance represents one of the most successful applications of genomics in aquaculture breeding [31]. This QTL was mapped to the nae1 (NEDD-8 activating enzyme 1) gene, and functional validation via CRISPR-Cas9 knockout in salmon cell lines resulted in a highly significant reduction in productive IPNV replication, confirming its causal role [31]. The nae1 gene is involved in the neddylation pathway, a post-translational modification that regulates protein turnover and innate immune signaling. Interestingly, disruption of cdh1, previously hypothesized to be a cellular receptor for IPNV, did not affect viral replication, redirecting attention toward the neddylation machinery as a critical host factor [31]. The marker-assisted selection based on this QTL has been widely adopted in Atlantic salmon breeding programs, markedly reducing IPN incidence in freshwater and early seawater stages. However, recent reports from Chile, Scotland, and Norway describe IPNV outbreaks in genetically resistant Atlantic salmon, with isolates belonging to genogroup 5 carrying novel mutations in the VP2 hypervariable region [8, 9, 11]. In one Norwegian case, the newly identified variant caused mortality even in fish homozygous for the resistance allele, with unique amino acid residues in VP2 that may facilitate escape from host defenses [11]. These findings underscore the evolutionary arms race between host and pathogen: as resistant stocks become widespread, selection pressure favors viral variants capable of overcoming the resistance mechanism.

In rainbow trout, the genetic architecture of IPNV resistance appears more polygenic. Heritability estimates for survival traits (binary survival: h² = 0.21-0.53; time to death: h² = 0.25-0.82) and virus load (h² = 0.23) indicate moderate to high additive genetic variation amenable to selection [28, 35, 38]. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified candidate genes on multiple chromosomes. A SNP on chromosome 5 explaining 19% of genetic variance for time to death is in proximity to SENP5 (sentrin-specific protease 5), which plays a role in deconjugation of SUMO (small ubiquitin-like modifier) from target proteins, a process involved in antiviral signaling [38]. A separate study using a 57K SNP array identified numerous QTLs crossing chromosome-wide significance, with potential candidate genes linked to immunity and viral pathogenesis, including those involved in interferon signaling, antigen presentation, and apoptosis [28]. Given the polygenic nature, genomic selection using single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) has been shown to improve accuracy of breeding value predictions by 7-11% compared to traditional pedigree-based methods, making it the recommended approach for rainbow trout breeding programs [35].

### Biosecurity, Surveillance, and Integrated Control

Despite advances in vaccination and genetic resistance, biosecurity remains the first line of defense, particularly for preventing the introduction of IPNV into naive populations or farms. IPNV is highly stable in the aquatic environment and can be transmitted horizontally via contaminated water, fomites, and infected fish, as well as vertically from broodstock to offspring. Molecular tracing studies have confirmed that infected smolts carry IPNV from hatcheries to marine grow-out sites, with sequence similarity between paired hatchery and farm isolates proving that infection follows the fish rather than arising from environmental sources [51]. This finding highlights the critical importance of hatchery biosecurity: rigorous screening of broodstock, disinfection of eggs (e.g., with iodophors), and rearing of specific-pathogen-free (SPF) fry can break the cycle of vertical transmission.

Surveillance programs using validated diagnostic tools are essential for early detection and containment. Real-time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) is the method of choice, but inter-laboratory variability in sensitivity and repeatability has been documented. A ring trial in Chile, the world’s second-largest salmon producer, revealed that while most laboratories achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity, problems with repeatability and high Ct-value dispersion across replicates undermined harmonization, leading to recommendations for standardized protocols from the National Reference Laboratory [62]. Ultra-sensitive detection methods have been developed, including lateral flow chip and fluorometric biosensors using recombinant human apoferritin nanoprobes functionalized with protein-G and 6×His-tag, achieving detection limits of 0.88 TCID₅₀/mL [58] and 2.69 TCID₅₀/mL via label-free impedance biosensors [60]. These point-of-care devices could revolutionize on-farm surveillance, enabling rapid containment response.

Epidemiological surveillance has revealed the global distribution and evolution of IPNV genotypes. In China, passive surveillance from 2017 to 2020 identified 25 isolates, predominantly genogroups I and V, with divergence time analyses suggesting introduction from Japan in 1985 and subsequent diversification in 2006 [10]. In Finland, three genogroups (2, 5, and 6) co-circulate, but only genogroup 2 was associated with clinical disease in field observations, although experimental bath challenge showed that a Finnish genogroup 5 isolate caused the highest cumulative mortality in rainbow trout fry, while a Norwegian genogroup 5 isolate was virtually avirulent in the same host, illustrating host species-dependent virulence [14]. In Italy, IPNV has been endemic since the 1970s but exhibits an unusually low evolutionary rate (1.45-1.70 × 10⁻⁴ substitutions/site/year) and low dN/dS ratios, consistent with strong selective constraint. All Italian isolates carry the P217/T221 VP2 motif associated with low virulence, suggesting that reduced replication rates have diminished genetic drift and substitution rates [16]. Conversely, in Scotland, analysis of 57 isolates collected between 1982 and 2014 revealed that 59% were of the persistent type and only 1.79% were highly pathogenic, with positive selection acting on VP2 virulence determinants and under-representation of CpG dinucleotides as a potential immune evasion mechanism [17].

These epidemiological patterns inform risk-based control measures. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) lists IPNV as a notifiable pathogen for salmonid aquaculture, and many countries maintain official control programs. In Peru, where IPNV was absent until 2019, prevalence surveys in the major rainbow trout-producing states identified infection in Cusco (4.05%), Puno (3.81%), and Huancavelica (0.23%), underscoring the need for enhanced biosecurity to prevent further spread to free regions [5]. In Kenya, IPNV was detected in all eight rainbow trout and tilapia farms sampled, with isolates identical to European strains, implicating imported breeding material as the source [50]. This highlights the vulnerability of emerging aquaculture sectors to pathogen introduction via global trade.

### Antiviral Compounds and Future Therapeutics

While vaccination and genetic resistance are the mainstays of IPNV control, antiviral compounds may offer adjunctive therapy during outbreaks or for high-value broodstock. The entry pathway of IPNV is now well-characterized: the virus enters CHSE-214 cells via macropinocytosis, a process dependent on Na⁺/H⁺ exchanger activity, EGFR signaling, and effectors such as Pak1, Rac1, and PKC [24]. In salmon SHK-1 macrophage-like cells, macropinocytosis is also the primary route, with additional involvement of Ras, Rho GTPases, and Cdc42, but not clathrin [22]. The non-muscle myosin heavy chain 9 (Myh9) interacts with the VP2 capsid protein and is redistributed to the cell membrane upon infection; inhibitors of Myh9 (anti-Myh9 antibody, ML-7, siRNA) suppress IPNV infection, while overexpression enhances it [21]. These molecular insights open avenues for host-targeted antivirals that block virus entry without imposing direct selective pressure on viral proteins.

Several natural and synthetic compounds have demonstrated in vitro antiviral activity. The sulfated polysaccharide lambda-carrageenan (λ-CGN) inhibits IPNV replication in CHSE-214 cells with an IC₅₀ of 0.9 μg/mL and a selectivity index >142 [64]. Time-of-addition experiments revealed that λ-CGN acts on multiple stages of the viral life cycle, reducing both intracellular and extracellular viral RNA. Confocal microscopy confirmed intracellular localization, and pre-treatment upregulated innate immunity genes including CXCL11, IL1β, IFNa, and IRF3 [64]. A copper(I) homoleptic complex with a coumarin ligand reduced viral load by 99.5% at 15 μg/mL, with molecular docking suggesting interaction with the VP2 S domain involved in cell entry [66]. The flavonoid quercetin at 50 μmol/L decreased IPNV titer from 10⁷ to 10⁵ TCID₅₀ in RTG-2 cells and reduced viral load by 40% [67]. In silico screening of 23,760 compounds against the VP1 polymerase thumb domain identified two non-toxic non-nucleoside inhibitors with antiviral activity in the low micromolar range, though efficacy varied between IPNV strains [25].

The role of autophagy in IPNV replication is particularly intriguing. IPNV induces autophagy in CHSE-214 cells, as evidenced by LC3-I to LC3-II conversion, p62 degradation, and autophagosome formation. The autophagy inducer rapamycin promotes viral replication, while the inhibitor 3-methyladenine reduces it, indicating that the virus hijacks the autophagic machinery for its benefit [42]. Conversely, the double-stranded RNA-activated protein kinase R (PKR) is also exploited by IPNV: despite PKR not being upregulated during infection, its kinase activity phosphorylates eIF2α, and pharmacological inhibition of PKR decreases viral titers and reduces cell membrane compromise [47]. These proviral roles of PKR and autophagy represent potential targets for therapeutic intervention.

### Integrated Strategies and the Unresolved Challenge of Persistent Infection

Ultimately, no single intervention is likely to provide complete control of IPNV in all production systems. The virus’s ability to establish persistent, asymptomatic infections in carrier fish, with virus shed intermittently, undermines both vaccination and genetic resistance strategies. Oral DNA vaccination with VP2-encapsulated alginate microspheres successfully prevented the carrier state in challenged rainbow trout, as determined by the absence of viral transcripts and infectious virus at 45 days post-challenge [53]. This suggests

Future Research Directions

The substantial body of research accumulated on infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) has resolved critical aspects of its structural biology, genetic diversity, host immune interactions, and pathogenic mechanisms, as detailed in the preceding sections. Nevertheless, IPNV remains a formidable challenge to global salmonid aquaculture, with the virus demonstrating a remarkable capacity for persistence, evolution, and immune evasion (see Section on Pathogenesis and Immunity). The following future research directions are derived from the most recent and pressing gaps identified in the literature, representing the next frontier in IPNV research. These avenues are essential for translating fundamental discoveries into tangible improvements in disease control, animal welfare, and economic sustainability for the aquaculture industry. As IPNV is listed by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) as a notifiable pathogen of significant economic consequence, research aligned with these priorities is of international urgency.

Deciphering the Molecular Blueprint of Virulence and Host Range

The recent determination of the T=13 capsid structure of IPNV at 2.75 Å resolution represents a monumental leap in our understanding of virion architecture [1]. This structure, revealing previously undescribed interlocking C-terminal regions and positively charged residues in capsid pores, opens immediate avenues for structure-guided investigations.

1. Structure-Function Mapping of Virulence Determinants

The hypervariable domain (HVD) of VP2 has long been associated with virulence, yet a "magic marker" for pathogenicity remains elusive [4]. The new capsid structure provides a precise spatial context for these HVD residues. Future research must employ reverse genetics to systematically mutate specific surface loops on the P domain of VP2 identified in the T=13 structure [1] and correlate these changes with in vivo virulence phenotypes in controlled challenges (e.g., using the optimized cohabitation model described in [20]). This should be done across multiple genogroups, as isolates from genogroup 1 appear more virulent in rainbow trout than those from genogroup 5 in some contexts [15], while the P217T221 motif, classically associated with low virulence, has been found in clinically affected fish in Iran [13] and Italy [16], suggesting that the genetic background of the host and additional viral factors modulate the phenotype.

2. Elucidating the Role of VP5 and the 25 kDa Protein

The functions of the VP5 protein and the putative 25 kDa protein encoded by the ORF between VP2 and VP4 remain poorly understood. Comparative analysis of Chilean isolates revealed that some genogroup 5 strains possess an unusually long VP5 deduced amino acid sequence (29.6 kDa), and predictive analyses of the 25 kDa protein identified putative nuclear localization sequences and mitochondrial tropism signals [18]. Future work should focus on the functional characterization of these proteins using knockout and overexpression strategies in relevant cell lines (e.g., CHSE-214, SHK-1) and in vivo models. It is critical to determine whether VP5 is a bona fide virulence factor, a modulator of apoptosis, or a determinant of species-specific tropism.

3. Mechanisms of Capsid Assembly and Genome Packaging

The discovery that C-terminal interlocking of VP2 subunits within pentagonal assembly units is crucial for correct T=13 particle assembly, preventing the formation of non-infectious T=1 subviral particles [1], provides a novel target. Research should focus on the biophysical and temporal regulation of this assembly process. High-resolution cryo-electron tomography of virions during assembly, combined with in vitro reconstitution assays using recombinant VP2, could reveal the precise molecular choreography of capsid formation. Understanding this process could facilitate the development of small molecules that specifically disrupt pentagonal unit formation, acting as assembly inhibitors.

Unraveling the Host-Virus Arms Race: From Entry to Immune Evasion

Despite significant progress, the molecular details of the IPNV life cycle and the mechanisms by which it subverts host defenses are incomplete.

1. Complete Mapping of Viral Entry Pathways

IPNV has been shown to enter CHSE-214 cells via macropinocytosis, a process that involves Na+/H+ exchangers and the Rho GTPase family [24]. In SHK-1 macrophage-like cells, entry also proceeds via macropinocytosis, but is independent of clathrin, which could not be ruled out in CHSE-214 cells [22]. Furthermore, non-muscle myosin heavy chain 9 (Myh9) has been identified as a critical cellular factor that interacts with VP2 and is required for entry [21]. A major future direction is to resolve this apparent complexity. Does IPNV utilize multiple entry pathways depending on the host cell type? What is the cognate cellular receptor? The identification of a specific receptor (and its confirmation or refutation of the cdh1 candidate [31]) is a high-priority goal. This will require a combination of affinity purification, CRISPR-based knockout screens, and single-virion tracking using quantum dots, as pioneered in [21].

2. The Enigma of Persistent Infection and Viral Interference

IPNV is renowned for establishing persistent infections in carrier fish, a state that is critical for its epidemiology [52, 61]. The mechanisms of persistence are likely multifaceted. Research must now integrate the known epigenetic reprogramming of IFN1 and IFNγ2 promoters in RTS11 cells [29] with the observation that PKR activation favors IPNV replication [47]. Does PKR-induced eIF2α phosphorylation serve to shut down host protein synthesis while selectively allowing viral translation mediated by the VPg protein (which acts as a cap substitute and interacts with eIF4E) [6]? Furthermore, the phenomenon of viral interference, where IPNV inhibits replication of IHNV [32, 41] but synergizes with it in other contexts [36], and provides cross-protection against VHSV [34] and SVCV [46], requires a unified mechanistic explanation. Future work should quantify the temporal dynamics of interferon and stress pathway activation during co-infections using single-cell transcriptomics [56] and proteomics to identify the molecular switches that determine antagonistic versus synergistic outcomes.

Translational Frontiers: Next-Generation Vaccines and Antivirals

The ultimate goal of much IPNV research is to develop effective and practical control measures. Current evidence points toward significant breakthroughs.

1. Advanced Vaccine Platforms: Beyond the Monovalent Paradigm

Several promising vaccine candidates have shown efficacy in controlled trials. Inactivated whole-virus vaccines [3, 37], recombinant VP2 subunit vaccines expressed in E. coli [37] or microalgae (Nannochloropsis oceanica) [65], and Bacillus subtilis spore-displayed VP2 [33] have all demonstrated protection. Live-vectored vaccines, particularly those based on attenuated IHNV expressing VP2, have achieved high relative percent survival (RPS) rates against both IHNV and IPNV (81.5% against IHNV and 88.9% against IPNV in one study [59]; 86% against IHNV in another [57]). A bivalent DNA vaccine encoding IHNV G and IPNV VP2-VP3 also showed high protection [44]. Future research must:

• Optimize delivery: Move beyond intraperitoneal injection to immersion and oral routes suitable for mass vaccination of fry. The live vector vaccine administered by immersion [40] and oral alginate-encapsulated DNA vaccine [53] are encouraging leads.
• Evaluate multivalent constructs: Given the prevalence of co-infections [39], vaccines that simultaneously target IPNV, IHNV, and perhaps SAV or VHSV are highly desirable. The rIHNV-based vectors [57, 59, 61] and adenovirus-vectored bivalent vaccines [30] are strong candidates.
• Incorporate genomic selection into vaccine trials: As genetically resistant fish are becoming widespread, it is critical to test vaccine efficacy in these populations. Initial evidence suggests that new IPNV variants can cause mortality in genetically resistant Atlantic salmon [8, 11]. Vaccines may need to be tailored to these emerging variants.

2. Identifying and Targeting the Achilles' Heel: Antiviral Compounds

The search for directly acting antivirals (DAAs) against IPNV is accelerating. The polysaccharide λ-carrageenan has demonstrated potent in vitro activity (IC50 of 0.9 μg/mL) and acts by inhibiting viral genomic RNA synthesis and enhancing innate immunity [64]. A copper(I) complex with a coumarin ligand has shown strong antiviral activity at 5-15 μg/mL by potentially interacting with the VP2 S domain and blocking entry [66]. Quercetin reduced IPNV titers 100-fold at 50 μmol/L [67]. In silico screening has identified non-nucleoside inhibitors of the VP1 polymerase, two of which showed antiviral activity in the low μM range against different IPNV strains [25]. Future directions include:

• Confirming in vivo efficacy: The most promising in vitro candidates (e.g., λ-carrageenan) must be tested in controlled in vivo challenges in fry and post-smolts, using the optimized cohabitation model [20].
• Determining resistance profiles: For any lead compound, the barrier to resistance must be established by serial passage of IPNV in the presence of sub-inhibitory concentrations and subsequent sequencing of the target gene (e.g., VP1 or VP2).
• Developing combination therapies: Based on the success of DAA combinations for HCV and HIV, the synergistic potential of entry inhibitors (e.g., Myh9 inhibitors [21]), capsid binders, and polymerase inhibitors should be explored.

Harnessing Host Genetics for Durable Resistance

The discovery of a major QTL for IPNV resistance on Atlantic salmon chromosome 26, with the nae1 gene as the most likely causative candidate [31], alongside polygenic resistance loci in rainbow trout [28, 38], has revolutionized breeding.

1. Functional Validation of Resistance Genes

While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified candidate genes like SENP5 and those involved in viral replication and immune response (Table 3 in [38]), their precise roles remain correlative. A high priority is the functional validation of these candidates using CRISPR-Cas9 knockout (as was done for nae1 [31]) and overexpression in salmonid cell lines, followed by IPNV challenge. This will move from statistical association to causal demonstration.

2. Understanding the Molecular Mechanism of Neddylation in Resistance

The involvement of NEDD-8 activating enzyme 1 (NAE1) in IPNV resistance links the ubiquitin-proteasome system and neddylation to viral replication [31]. Future research must elucidate the specific host proteins that are neddylated and how their modification restricts IPNV replication. Is NAE1 activity required for the correct trafficking of a viral receptor, the assembly of the viral replicase complex, or the induction of a specific antiviral state? Understanding this mechanism could lead to the development of small molecules that mimic the resistant genotype.

3. Genomic Selection in the Era of Viral Evolution

As demonstrated by the emergence of IPNV variants that break host genetic resistance in Norway [11], Scotland [9], and Chile [8], the virus is under immense selective pressure to adapt. Long-term, the durability of genetic resistance must be monitored. This requires a "One Health" approach combining:

• High-throughput sequencing surveillance: Continuous monitoring of VP2 sequences from field outbreaks, particularly in farms using genetically resistant stocks.
• Experimental evolution studies: In vitro and in vivo passaging of IPNV in cells or fish with the resistant genotype to assess the likelihood and rate of emergence of escape mutants.
• Integrating genomic and vaccine strategies: The most resilient approach will likely be a combination of genetic resistance and vaccination, a hypothesis that requires rigorous testing in field trials.

Eco-Epidemiological Dynamics and Surveillance in a Changing World

Our understanding of IPNV distribution is rapidly expanding, with new genogroups and reservoirs being identified.

1. Defining the Role of Non-Salmonid Hosts

The detection of IPNV in tilapia in Kenya [50] and the experimental demonstration that swan mussels (Anodonta cygnea) can accumulate and maintain IPNV for at least 35 days [49] suggest a broader host range and transmission network than previously appreciated. Future surveillance should specifically target wild fish populations, invertebrates, and water samples near aquaculture facilities. The role of these alternative hosts as persistent reservoirs or vectors must be quantified using environmental DNA (eDNA) and viral infectivity assays.

2. Drivers of Viral Emergence and Reassortment

The recent characterization of a novel genogroup 6 isolate from sea trout in Sweden, which exhibited low pathogenicity [2], contrasts sharply with the highly pathogenic genogroup 5 isolates that have caused outbreaks in resistant fish [11]. The mechanisms driving the emergence of new variants and reassortants (as seen in Scottish isolates [17]) need urgent investigation. Is viral evolution driven by host immune pressure, vaccine-driven selection, or changes in farming practices? Phylodynamic and phylogeographic analyses integrating viral sequence data with metadata on host genetics, vaccination status, and environmental parameters (e.g., temperature) will be critical.

3. Standardizing and Validating Point-of-Care Diagnostics

The development of ultra-sensitive biosensors for IPNV detection, such as the apoferritin nanoprobe-based sensors with detection limits of 0.88 TCID50/mL [58] and label-free impedance biosensors for whole fish samples [60], represents a major step forward. However, inter-laboratory ring trials have revealed significant variability in qRT-PCR Ct values and repeatability issues [62]. Future research must focus on:

• Field validation: Testing these novel biosensors under real-world farm conditions.
• Automation and harmonization: Developing standardized, robust, and portable diagnostic platforms suitable for use by non-specialist personnel at hatcheries and farms. The coagglutination test reported in [63] may offer a low-cost alternative, but its sensitivity and specificity need rigorous comparison with molecular methods. The FAO and WOAH guidelines for diagnostic test validation should be strictly applied.

In conclusion, the future of IPNV research lies in integrating cutting-edge structural biology, functional genomics, immunology, and epidemiology. The ultimate goal is to move from a reactive to a predictive and prophylactic management framework, ensuring the long-term sustainability of salmonid aquaculture in the face of a changing viral landscape.

References

[1] Munke A, Gamil AAA, Mikalsen A, Wang H, Evensen Ø, Okamoto K. Structure of the T=13 capsid of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), a salmonid birnavirus. bioRxiv. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01454-24

[2] Dubey S, Munang'andu H, Mugimba KK, Persson B, Schmidt J, Hakhverdyan M, et al.. Characterization of a Novel Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) from Genogroup 6 Identified in Sea Trout (Salmo trutta) from Lake Vänern, Sweden. Veterinary Sciences. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10010058

[3] Duan K, Tang X, Zhao J, Ren G, Shao Y, Lu T, et al.. An inactivated vaccine against infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2022.06.008

[4] Dopazo C. The Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) and its Virulence Determinants: What is Known and What Should be Known. Pathogens. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9020094

[5] Ulloa-Stanojlovic FM, Caballero-Celli R, Smith C, Orezzoli MG. Distribution and epidemiology of the infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Peru. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3856/vol50-issue4-fulltext-2886

[6] González-Catrilelbún S, Cartagena J, Vargas D, Breguel-Serrano P, Sandino A, Rivas-Aravena A. The RNA-dependent RNA polymerase of the infectious pancreatic necrosis virus is linked to viral mRNA acting as a cap substitute.. Journal of General Virology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001729

[7] Shao Y, Ren G, Zhao J, Lu T, Liu Q, Xu L. Dynamic Distribution of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) Strains of Genogroups 1, 5, and 7 after Intraperitoneal Administration in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14122634

[8] Godoy M, Kibenge M, Oca MMd, Pontigo JP, Coca Y, Caro D, et al.. Isolation of a New Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) Variant from Genetically Resistant Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) during 2021–2022. Pathogens. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11111368

[9] Benkaroun J, Muir KF, Allshire R, Tamer C, Weidmann M. Isolation of a New Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) Variant from a Fish Farm in Scotland. Viruses. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13030385

[10] Duan K, Zhao J, Ren G, Shao Y, Lu T, Xu L, et al.. Molecular Evolution of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus in China. Viruses. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13030488

[11] Hillestad B, Johannessen S, Melingen GO, Moghadam H. Identification of a New Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) Variant in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) that can Cause High Mortality Even in Genetically Resistant Fish. Frontiers in Genetics. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.635185

[12] . infectious pancreatic necrosis virus. CABI Compendium. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.96359

[13] Ahmadivand S, Weidmann M, El-Matbouli M, Rahmati-Holasoo H. Low Pathogenic Strain of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) Associated with Recent Outbreaks in Iranian Trout Farms. Pathogens. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9100782

[14] Eriksson-Kallio AM, Holopainen R, Koski P, Nousiainen A, Koskinen H, Kause A, et al.. Susceptibility of rainbow trout to three different genogroups of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus.. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/dao03512

[15] Tapia D, Barría A, Yáñez J. Comparison of Mortality and Viral Load in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) infected with Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) Genogroups 1 and 5. bioRxiv. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/719104

[16] Panzarin V, Holmes E, Abbadi M, Zamperin G, Quartesan R, Milani A, et al.. Low evolutionary rate of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) in Italy is associated with reduced virulence in trout. Virus Evolution. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/vey019

[17] Ulrich K, Wehner S, Bekaert M, Paola ND, Dilcher M, Muir KF, et al.. Molecular epidemiological study on Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus isolates from aquafarms in Scotland over three decades.. Journal of General Virology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001155

[18] Manríquez RA, Vera T, Villalba M, Mancilla A, Vakharia V, Yáñez A, et al.. Molecular characterization of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus strains isolated from the three types of salmonids farmed in Chile. Virology Journal. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-017-0684-x

[19] Mutoloki S, Jøssund TB, Ritchie G, Munang'andu H, Evensen Ø. Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus Causing Clinical and Subclinical Infections in Atlantic Salmon Have Different Genetic Fingerprints. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01393

[20] Munang'andu H, Santi N, Fredriksen BN, Løkling K, Evensen Ø. A Systematic Approach towards Optimizing a Cohabitation Challenge Model for Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). PLoS ONE. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148467

[21] Shao L, Zhao J, Tang Q. Non-muscle myosin heavy chain 9 is a critical factor for infectious pancreatic necrosis virus cellular entry. Aquaculture. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736138

[22] Levicán-Asenjo J, Soto-Rifo R, Aguayo F, Gaggero A, León O. Salmon cells SHK-1 internalize infectious pancreatic necrosis virus by macropinocytosis.. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.13009

[23] Maj-Paluch J, Matras M, Borzym E, Stachnik M, Reichert M. Phylogenetic characterization of Polish isolates of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in salmonid fish.. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.13249

[24] Levican J, Miranda-Cárdenas C, Soto-Rifo R, Aguayo F, Gaggero A, León O. Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus enters CHSE-214 cells via macropinocytosis. Scientific Reports. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03036-w

[25] Bello-Perez M, Falcó A, Galiano V, Coll J, Perez L, Encinar J. Discovery of nonnucleoside inhibitors of polymerase from infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV). Drug Design, Development and Therapy. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S171087

[26] Palchak K, Chothe S, Sebastian A, Nissly R, Barry R, Albert I, et al.. Whole-Genome Sequence of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus Isolated from Farmed Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Pennsylvania. Genome Announcements. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00360-18

[27] Xu C, Gamil A, Wang X, Munang'andu H, Evensen Ø. MAVS disruption impairs downstream signaling and results in higher virus replication levels of salmonid alphavirus subtype 3 but not infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in vitro. Frontiers in Immunology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1401086

[28] Ahmad A, Aslam ML, Evensen Ø, Gamil A, Berge A, Solberg T, et al.. The genetics of resistance to infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in rainbow trout unveiled through survival and virus load data. Frontiers in Genetics. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2024.1484287

[29] Manríquez RA, Sandoval M, Loncoman CA, Tafalla C, Avendaño-Herrera R, Cárcamo J. Epigenetic reprogramming around IFN1 and IFNy2 promoters in rainbow trout cells inoculated with infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV).. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2023.108947

[30] Li S, Li X, Yuan R, Chen X, Chen S, Qiu Y, et al.. Development of a recombinant adenovirus-vectored vaccine against both infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2022.108457

[31] Pavelin J, Jin Y, Gratacap R, Taggart J, Hamilton A, Verner-Jeffreys D, et al.. The nedd-8 activating enzyme gene underlies genetic resistance to infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in Atlantic salmon. Genomics. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2021.09.012

[32] Shao Y, Zhao J, Ren G, Lu T, Chen X, Xu L. Early or Simultaneous Infection with Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus Inhibits Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus Replication and Induces a Stronger Antiviral Response during Co-infection in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14081732

[33] Docando F, Nuñez-Ortiz N, Goncalves G, Serra C, Gomez-Casado E, Martín D, et al.. Bacillus subtilis Expressing the Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus VP2 Protein Retains Its Immunostimulatory Properties and Induces a Specific Antibody Response. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.888311

[34] Maj-Paluch J, Wasiak M, Bocian Ł, Reichert M. Comparison of Selected Immune Parameters in a Single Infection and Co-Infection with Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus with Other Viruses in Rainbow Trout. Pathogens. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11060658

[35] Yoshida G, Carvalheiro R, Rodríguez FH, Lhorente J, Yáñez J. Single-step genomic evaluation improves accuracy of breeding value predictions for resistance to infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in rainbow trout.. Genomics. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2018.01.008

[36] Xu L, Zhao J, Liu M, Ren G, Han S, Shao Y, et al.. Infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus enhanced infectious pancreatic necrosis virus multiplication during co-infection in Chinook salmon embryo cell lines. Aquaculture. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735898

[37] Tamer C, Cavunt A, Durmaz Y, Ozan E, Kadı H, Kalaycı G, et al.. Inactivated infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) vaccine and E.coli-expressed recombinant IPNV-VP2 subunit vaccine afford protection against IPNV challenge in rainbow trout.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2021.06.002

[38] Rodríguez FH, Flores-Mara R, Yoshida G, Barría A, Jedlicki A, Lhorente J, et al.. Genome-Wide Association Analysis for Resistance to Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus Identifies Candidate Genes Involved in Viral Replication and Immune Response in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.119.400463

[39] Xu L, Zhao J, Ren G, Ying D, Lin J, Cao Y, et al.. Co-infection of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) caused high mortality in farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in China. Aquaculture. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2019.734286

[40] Li S, Hu Y, Li X, Han S, Zhang B, Yan Z, et al.. Development of a live vector vaccine against infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in rainbow trout. Aquaculture. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735275

[41] Xu L, Liu M, Zhao J, Ren G, Dong Y, Shao Y, et al.. Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus inhibits infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus at the early stage of infection in a time dependent manner during Co-infection in Chinook salmon embryo cell lines.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2020.05.010

[42] Dong Y, Zhao J, Chen X, Liu M, Ren G, Lu T, et al.. Autophagy induced by infectious pancreatic necrosis virus promotes its multiplication in the Chinook salmon embryo cell line CHSE-214.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2019.12.067

[43] Nombela I, Carrion A, Puente-Marin S, Chico V, Mercado L, Perez L, et al.. Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus triggers antiviral immune response in rainbow trout red blood cells, despite not being infective. F1000Research. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12994.2

[44] Xu L, Zhao J, Liu M, Ren G, Jian F, Yin J, et al.. Bivalent DNA vaccine induces significant immune responses against infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in rainbow trout. Scientific Reports. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06143-w

[45] Robledo D, Taggart J, Ireland J, McAndrew B, Starkey W, Haley C, et al.. Gene expression comparison of resistant and susceptible Atlantic salmon fry challenged with Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis virus reveals a marked contrast in immune response. BMC Genomics. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2600-y

[46] Bello-Perez M, Medina-Gali R, Coll J, Perez L. Viral interference between infectious pancreatic necrosis virus and spring viremia of carp virus in zebrafish. Aquaculture. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2018.10.039

[47] Gamil A, Xu C, Mutoloki S, Evensen Ø. PKR Activation Favors Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus Replication in Infected Cells. Viruses. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v8060173

[48] Pajdak-Czaus J, Schulz P, Terech-Majewska E, Szweda W, Siwicki A, Platt-Samoraj A. Influence of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus and Yersinia ruckeri Co-Infection on a Non-Specific Immune System in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Animals. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071974

[49] Rud Y, Maistrenko M, Zaloilo O, Liubchenko GA, Buchatskiy LP, Hrytsyniak I. Experimental infection of brown trout (Salmo trutta), zebrafi sh (Danio rerio), and swan mussel (Anodonta cygnea) with infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPVN). . 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/AGRISP7.03.031

[50] Mulei IR, Mulei IR, Nyaga PN, Mbuthia P, Waruiru R, Njagi LW, et al.. Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus isolated from farmed rainbow trout and tilapia in Kenya is identical to European isolates.. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12807

[51] Kristoffersen AB, Devold M, Aspehaug V, Gjelstenli O, Breck O, Jensen BB. Molecular tracing confirms that infection with infectious pancreatic necrosis virus follows the smolt from hatchery to grow-out farm.. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12844

[52] Tamer C, Durmaz Y, Palanci HS, Ozan E, Kadı H, Yazici Z, et al.. A serological survey on ınfectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) and ınfectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHVN) from rainbow trout in Turkey. . 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35864/EVMD.609700

[53] Ballesteros NA, Saint-Jean SR, Pérez-Prieto S. Immune responses to oral pcDNA-VP2 vaccine in relation to infectious pancreatic necrosis virus carrier state in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss.. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2015.04.001

[54] Salgado-Miranda C, Rojas-Anaya E, García-Espinosa G, Loza-Rubio E. Virulence of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) isolates from Mexico. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.18-0737

[55] Dopazo C. Aquatic birnavirosis (infectious pancreatic necrosis virus).. . 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789243277.0102

[56] Perdiguero P, Jiménez-Barrios P, Morel E, Abós B, Tafalla C. Single-cell atlas of rainbow trout peripheral blood leukocytes and profiling of their early response to infectious pancreatic necrosis virus. Frontiers in Immunology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1404209

[57] Zhao J, Liu M, Xu L, Zhang Z, Cao Y, Shao Y, et al.. A chimeric recombinant infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus induces protective immune responses against infectious hematopoietic necrosis and infectious pancreatic necrosis in rainbow trout.. Molecular Immunology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2019.10.015

[58] Chavan S, Kim D, Hwang J, Choi Y, Hong J, Kim J, et al.. Enhanced detection of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus via lateral flow chip and fluorometric biosensors based on self-assembled protein nanoprobes.. ACS Sensors. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.9b01362

[59] Chen Y, Guo M, Wang Y, Hua X, Gao S, Wang Y, et al.. Immunity induced by recombinant attenuated IHNV (infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus)-GN438A expresses VP2 gene-encoded IPNV (infectious pancreatic necrosis virus) against both pathogens in rainbow trout.. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12966

[60] Chavan S, Yagati A, Mohammadniaei M, Min J, Lee M. Robust Bioengineered Apoferritin Nanoprobes for Ultrasensitive Detection of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus.. Analytical Chemistry. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b00187

[61] Guo M, Shi W, Wang Y, Wang Y, Chen Y, Li D, et al.. Recombinant infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus expressing infectious pancreatic necrosis virus VP2 protein induces immunity against both pathogens. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2018.04.047

[62] Tapia D, Eissler Y, Espinoza JC, Kuznar J. Inter-laboratory ring trial to evaluate real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction methods used for detection of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in Chile. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJBT.2017.05.008

[63] Pekmez K, Kalaycı G, Gürhan SI, Tuna E. Preparation and optimization of rapid and sensitive coagglutination test for detection of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV). Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2002-61

[64] Espinoza D, Laporte D, Martínez F, Sandino A, Valdés N, Moenne A, et al.. Lambda carrageenan displays antiviral activity against the infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) by inhibiting viral replication and enhancing innate immunity in salmonid cells.. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.136875

[65] Rout S, Grahl Id, Yu X, Reumann S. Production of a viral surface protein in Nannochloropsis oceanica for fish vaccination against infectious pancreatic necrosis virus. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-022-12106-7

[66] Gutiérrez D, Benavides A, Valenzuela B, Mascayano C, Aldabaldetrecu M, Olguín A, et al.. Evaluation of the Antiviral Activity against Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) of a Copper (I) Homoleptic Complex with a Coumarin as Ligand. Molecules. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27010032

[67] Yıldırım S, Gumusova S. Effect of Quercetin on Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus: in Vitro Replication Study. . 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4194/2618-6381-v20_2_05