Avian Hepatitis E Virus

Overview

Avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) is an economically significant pathogen primarily affecting poultry, causing diseases such as big liver and spleen disease, hepatitis-splenomegaly syndrome, and hepatic rupture hemorrhage syndrome [1, 7, 8]. Since its initial identification in the late 1980s, aHEV has been recognized as a major contributor to decreased egg production, increased mortality, and overall disruption of poultry productivity worldwide. Notably, the virus has been associated with gross lesions in the liver and spleen, with characteristic histopathological findings like hemorrhagic lesions and necrosis [1, 8]. Epidemiological studies report wide-spread occurrence of aHEV not only in chickens but also in a variety of bird species including quails, ducks, geese, and even wild birds, indicating a potentially extensive host range and high adaptability in different ecosystems [5, 14]. Given the economic burden imposed on the global poultry industry and the potential, albeit still under investigation, for zoonotic transmission warned by international authorities such as the WHO and the CDC for analogous pathogens, a detailed understanding of the virus’s molecular and taxonomic characteristics is paramount.

Taxonomy

Avian hepatitis E virus is classified within the family Hepeviridae, specifically in the genus Orthohepevirus, and is often designated under the Orthohepevirus B species [7, 20]. Unlike the human and swine hepatitis E viruses, avian HEV shows significant genetic divergence yet shares similar genomic organization and antigenic properties that echo those of its mammalian counterparts. To date, multiple genotypes of aHEV have been identified; prominent among these are genotypes 2, 3, and more recently genotype 7, which have been isolated from diverse geographic regions including Europe, Asia, and, as emerging evidence indicates, in regions of Africa and South Asia [6, 7, 21]. The genomic plasticity and the evolution of distinct genotypes underscore the rapid adaptive evolution of aHEV. Phylogenetic analyses have demonstrated that, despite nucleotide sequence divergence, certain crucial epitopes remain conserved across different strains, which is significant not only for diagnostic assay development but also for the formulation of subunit vaccines [3, 12]. This genetic diversity, along with the identification of putative novel genotypes in areas such as Nigeria and Poland [6, 10, 13], illustrates the dynamic nature of avian HEV evolution and underscores the necessity for continuous surveillance and molecular epidemiological investigations. Furthermore, the absence of efficient cell culture systems in routine diagnostics has historically limited detailed studies; however, the advent of next-generation sequencing and improved molecular techniques has significantly enhanced our understanding of aHEV taxonomy and evolution [11, 19].

Molecular Biology

At the molecular level, avian hepatitis E virus possesses a positive-sense, single-stranded RNA genome of approximately 6.6–7.2 kilobases, excluding the poly(A) tail [7, 20]. The viral genome is organized into three partially overlapping open reading frames (ORFs): ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3, each playing crucial roles in the virus’s life cycle. ORF1 encodes a polyprotein that is processed into multiple functional nonstructural proteins, including proteins with methyltransferase, helicase, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase activities that are essential for viral replication [9, 11]. Variability in ORF1, sometimes highlighted by specific amino acid substitutions, has been implicated in differences in pathogenicity and replication efficiency among various strains [9].

ORF2 encodes the immunogenic capsid protein, which is a critical determinant for host immune recognition and viral assembly. Detailed mapping studies have revealed that specific regions within the ORF2 protein, notably the C-terminal amino acids 471–507, are essential for binding to avian and even human cells [18]. This binding is not merely a structural aspect but triggers downstream molecular interactions that facilitate viral internalization. For instance, the interaction between the ORF2 protein and host proteins such as Rap1b leads to cytoskeletal rearrangements that enhance virus uptake, as demonstrated by the recruitment of key effectors like RIAM and Talin-1 which in turn activate integrin-mediated pathways including focal adhesion kinase (FAK) cascades [2]. Such mechanistic insights are critical for understanding the initial stages of the viral infection process and identifying potential antiviral targets.

The accessory protein encoded by ORF3, although much smaller, is implicated in modulating host responses and might participate in the regulation of viral replication and egress. The ORF3 protein is also currently being exploited as a candidate antigen in subunit vaccine development, and studies have shown that immunization with ORF3 subunits can reduce viral shedding in infected birds [4]. Moreover, innovative approaches such as the construction of replicon systems based on aHEV infectious clones have demonstrated potential as vaccine platforms. In these systems, heterologous genes such as enhanced green fluorescent protein or other viral antigens can be inserted in place of ORF2, thereby providing a novel strategy for producing an RNA vaccine [17]. This method not only highlights the versatility of the aHEV genome for genetic manipulation but also paves the way for cross-protection studies against co-infecting pathogens in poultry.

Further complexity in the molecular biology of aHEV is evident from the various recombination events and genetic reassortments reported in different geographic regions [11]. Such events can lead to mosaic genomes harboring segments with significant divergence from established genotypes, and these findings have enriched our understanding of viral evolution and emergence of new pathogenic strains. In parallel, diagnostic techniques such as SYBR Green real‐time RT-PCR assays targeting conserved regions of the ORF3 gene have been developed for rapid and sensitive detection of aHEV RNA in clinical samples [16]. Additionally, the use of nanobody-based assays targeting specific epitopes on the capsid protein has significantly enhanced serological testing for aHEV, providing reliable means for field surveys and epidemiological studies [3].

At a broader level, the molecular interactions between avian HEV and the host cell surface receptors, such as the recently identified organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1A2 (OATP1A2), further illuminate the virus’s strategy to hijack normal cellular functions. OATP1A2 has been shown to directly bind the truncated ORF2 protein, correlating with the efficiency of viral attachment and entry into host liver cells [15]. Such findings not only underscore the intricate virus–host interplay but also reveal potential choke points for intervention as advised by global health agencies like the WOAH and CDC when dealing with economically critical pathogens that may have zoonotic potential.

Molecular Determinants of Viral Attachment and Entry

Avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) is a positive-sense, single-stranded RNA virus characterized by three open reading frames (ORFs) that code for proteins essential for its replication and pathogenicity. A key step in the molecular pathogenesis of aHEV is the specific binding of its capsid protein to host cellular receptors. Multiple studies have delineated that the viral capsid, encoded by ORF2, contains critical determinants for host cell attachment. In particular, truncated constructs and binding assays have demonstrated that the amino acid region spanning 471–507 is indispensable for attachment to both avian and human cells [18]. This region appears to mediate specific interactions with host cell surface molecules, ultimately facilitating viral entry. Furthermore, investigations into host protein interactions have identified the chicken organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1A2 (OATP1A2) as a binding partner for the aHEV ORF2 protein. Overexpression experiments clearly showed that OATP1A2 enhances the adsorption of the capsid protein onto host cells, while its inhibition by specific substrates or antibodies significantly reduces viral uptake [15]. This suggests that OATP1A2 functions as a crucial entry receptor, mediating the initial step of infection, a finding that aligns with strategies employed by other hepatotropic viruses recognized by global health agencies such as the WHO and FAO.

Cytoskeletal Remodeling and Intracellular Signaling Cascades

Upon attachment to the host cell membrane, aHEV exploits complex intracellular signaling pathways to facilitate its internalization and subsequent replication. Detailed mechanistic studies have shown that interaction between the viral capsid protein and host proteins, such as Rap1b, triggers a cascade of events that culminate in cytoskeletal rearrangement. The binding of the viral ORF2 protein to Rap1b leads to the recruitment of downstream effectors including the Rap1-interacting adaptor molecule (RIAM) and Talin-1 [2]. Talin-1 is known to activate integrin α5/β1, which in turn engages focal adhesion kinase (FAK). Activation of FAK sets off further signaling through small GTPases such as CDC42 and RAC1 along with kinases like PAK1 and LIMK1. These molecules work cohesively to trigger the activation of Cofilin, an actin-binding protein, which ultimately drives the F-actin polymerization and rearrangement necessary for the formation of lamellipodia, filopodia, and stress fibers [2]. This rearrangement not only remodels the plasma membrane but also creates a conducive environment for aHEV virion internalization. The reliance on such integrin-FAK pathways is a common theme in viral entry strategies, as seen with other economically critical pathogens, and underscores the virus’s ability to hijack host cell machinery in a manner comparable to certain mammalian hepatitis viruses monitored by the CDC.

Host Innate Immune Activation and Inflammatory Responses

In addition to mechanisms that facilitate viral entry, aHEV infection rapidly engages the host’s innate immune defenses. Experimental infections have illuminated that aHEV induces a robust inflammatory response characterized by the upregulation of key cytokines such as interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and IL-18 [22]. This proinflammatory milieu is initiated through the activation of host pattern recognition receptors, prominently the Toll-like receptors (TLRs), which in turn activate the nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) pathway. The engagement of TLRs and subsequent NF-κB activation lead to an induction of the NOD-like receptor (NLR) family and caspase-1 activation. These events are interconnected with the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways, including the c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), and P38 kinases [22]. The mutual regulatory relationships among these signaling cascades amplify the inflammatory response and contribute to the liver damage observed during infection, as manifested in hepatocellular necrosis and hemorrhagic lesions. Such pathomechanisms, which impair liver function and contribute to clinical syndromes like hepatitis-splenomegaly syndrome, have drawn the attention of global animal health authorities given their impact on poultry production and potential zoonotic implications.

Modulation of Host Cellular Machinery by Viral Proteins

Another layer of host-virus interaction in aHEV infection centers on the manipulation of cellular processes by viral proteins outside of the initial attachment process. Although less extensively documented, the ORF3 protein of aHEV has been implicated in modulating host cellular immune responses and aiding in viral propagation. Subunit vaccine studies employing ORF3 have provided evidence that the immunogenic properties of this protein not only contribute to protective immunity but may also have a role in dampening host antiviral responses upon infection [4]. The viral ORF3 may interact with intracellular signaling proteins to create an environment more favorable to viral replication, analogous to similar strategies employed by other nonenveloped hepatitis viruses in both human and animal models.

Complexity of Receptor Usage and Cross-Species Insights

The multi-receptor strategy of aHEV is further underscored by its capacity to interact with receptors present in both avian and mammalian cells. Experiments using different cell lines have revealed that the binding domain within the aHEV capsid protein is capable of interacting with target cells beyond the traditional chicken hepatocytes, including cells derived from human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) and avian quail (QT-35) [18]. This cross-species binding ability, although not directly linked to zoonotic transmission, provides critical insight into the structural determinants that may influence host specificity and viral tropism. In parallel, molecular detection in various avian species ranging from chickens to ducks and geese demonstrates a widespread distribution of these key interactions in the poultry industry, reinforcing the economic relevance of such viral-host interactions as tracked by organizations like the WOAH.

Intracellular Replication and Viral Egress

Once internalized, aHEV’s replication strategy involves the synthesis of a viral replicon through the activity of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase encoded in ORF1. Although the difficulty in propagating aHEV in cell culture has hampered detailed studies of its replication cycle, recent advances using engineered replicon systems have started to shed light on the intracellular replication dynamics of the virus [17]. These replicon systems, which allow for the insertion and expression of heterologous genes, underscore the dual role of the viral RNA as both a template for protein synthesis and a substrate for replication. Such systems have provided valuable platforms to study the effects of viral mutations on replication efficiency and host tissue tropism, further emphasizing the intricate balance between viral replication and host cellular defenses.

Integrated View of Host-Virus Dynamics

The molecular pathogenesis of aHEV is defined by a highly coordinated interplay between viral proteins and host cellular factors. The initial attachment via specific capsid domains, receptor-mediated internalization through OATP1A2 and associated integrin-related components, and subsequent cytoskeletal rearrangements orchestrated by Rap1b-dependent signaling cascades collectively set the stage for successful infection [2, 15, 18]. Concurrently, the initiation of innate immune responses via TLRs, NF-κB, and MAPK cascades not only contributes to viral clearance but also underlies the tissue damage that is characteristic of aHEV-associated liver pathology [22]. This duality in host-virus interactions – where the virus both harnesses and subverts host cellular machinery – typifies the complex molecular pathogenesis that poses serious challenges to poultry health and production. Given the economic significance of aHEV outbreaks as documented by global agencies such as the CDC and FAO, continued elucidation of these molecular mechanisms is crucial for the development of targeted interventions and effective control strategies.

Epidemiology and Transmission Dynamics

Avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) represents a complex and evolving challenge in poultry health, characterized by extensive genetic diversity, multiple genotypes, and a broad host range. Epidemiological investigations across several continents have underscored the widespread distribution of aHEV, with reports emerging from Asia, Europe, Africa, and even isolated findings in North America. The transmission dynamics of aHEV are intricately linked to both biological factors at the cellular level and environmental conditions prevailing in diverse rearing systems.

Geographic Distribution and Genotypic Diversity

Epidemiological surveys have revealed that aHEV is not confined to a single genotype or geographic area. In China, multiple outbreaks associated with hepatitis-splenomegaly syndrome, big liver and spleen disease, and hepatic rupture hemorrhage have been linked to distinct genotypes including genotypes 3, 5, and even potential novel genotypes that do not cluster completely with the previously reported lineages [7, 9, 12, 27]. In Poland, solely genotype 2 viruses have been detected, indicating a geographically driven divergence in circulating strains [5, 13]. Similarly, studies in Nigeria and Hungary have identified strains that only modestly share sequence homology with known aHEV strains, thereby highlighting the ongoing evolution and recombination processes among aHEV populations [6, 10, 11]. These findings are critical for agencies such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which continuously monitor emerging poultry pathogens for their economic and potentially zoonotic implications.

Host Range Expansion and Vertical Transmission

Avian HEV has traditionally been associated with chickens; however, evidence now indicates that its host range is expanding to include other avian species such as quails, ducks, geese, and even cases of infection among pheasants [1, 5, 6, 14]. The clinical manifestations in these species, although sometimes subclinical, underscore the virus’s adaptive capabilities. Experimental infections have demonstrated that the virus can establish productive infections in diverse avian hosts, with similar pathognomonic lesions observed in livers and spleens [1, 24]. Vertical transmission has also been documented in breeder farms, with detection rates as high as 10–26% in reproductive tissues and eggs. This vertical route further complicates control measures, since latent infections can persist from generation to generation in the absence of overt clinical disease [26]. As such, vigilant surveillance and the integration of serological assays, including competitive ELISAs that target specific immunodominant epitopes, are essential for early detection and monitoring in both commercial and backyard operations [3].

Fecal-Oral Route and Environmental Influences

The primary mode of aHEV transmission in poultry is via the fecal-oral route, a pathway that is particularly efficient in densely populated rearing systems. Studies have demonstrated that variations in housing arrangements significantly alter transmission dynamics. For instance, comparative analyses of caged versus cage-free environments revealed markedly higher infection rates among birds with greater exposure to fecal matter in cage-free settings [28]. The virus’s environmental stability in feces and on contaminated surfaces facilitates rapid horizontal spread, with the low infectious dose required for transmission further contributing to its persistence in flocks. These characteristics make biosecurity practices and hygiene management critical components of disease control strategies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO) recommend strict sanitation protocols for zoonotic and animal-origin viruses, underscoring the need for similar measures in managing aHEV [CDC; WHO].

Coinfections and Synergistic Pathogenesis

An important aspect of the epidemiology of aHEV is its frequent occurrence alongside other pathogens. Coinfections with fowl adenovirus (FAdV), avian leukosis virus (ALV), and chicken infectious anemia virus (CIAV) have been documented in several studies, suggesting that aHEV rarely acts in isolation [23, 25, 27, 32]. These coinfections may exacerbate clinical outcomes, contributing to more severe liver lesions, increased mortality, and pronounced drops in egg production. In several epidemiological investigations, farms suffering from hepatitis-splenomegaly syndrome not only harbored aHEV but also a combination of immunosuppressive agents, indicating potential synergistic interactions that could challenge the host’s immune response [25, 27]. Molecular diagnostics based on RT-PCR and serological assays have been instrumental in detecting these mixed infections, enabling a more holistic understanding of disease outbreaks.

Viral Shedding, Persistence, and Environmental Reservoirs

Longitudinal studies indicate that viral shedding in feces and bile can persist for weeks post-infection, thereby enhancing the risk of continued spread within a flock [1, 8]. This persistent shedding, combined with subclinical infections, particularly in species such as quails and silkie fowl, creates a scenario where infected flocks may serve as reservoirs for aHEV. These reservoirs are notable both in areas with endemic infection and in regions where outbreaks occur sporadically [1, 31]. The virus’s ability to persist in the environment, coupled with potential recombination events identified in full-genome analyses, suggests that control measures must account for both acute infections and long-term environmental contamination [11].

Transmission at the Cellular Level and Its Implications in Spread

Recent mechanistic studies have elucidated some of the molecular interactions that facilitate viral entry and propagation. For example, the interaction between a truncated viral capsid protein and host cell receptors such as OATP1A2 has been shown to play a role in virus attachment and subsequent infection [15]. This receptor-mediated process is not only pivotal at the level of individual cell infection but may also contribute to the overall efficiency of viral transmission within the host organism and between birds. Although these molecular insights primarily inform on the viral entry process, they also have broader epidemiological implications by suggesting that interfering with viral receptor binding could be a potential strategy to mitigate infection spread [2, 18].

Economic and Public Health Considerations

The economic impact of aHEV is profound, given its association with decreased egg production, increased flock mortality, and potential disruption of breeding cycles. Surveillance data from multiple countries have demonstrated significant seroprevalence rates in both production and rearing flocks, implicating aHEV as a persistently threatening pathogen in poultry industries worldwide [29, 30]. Given the zoonotic potential flagged in studies involving related hepatitis E viruses, and while direct transmission to humans has not yet been conclusively documented with avian strains, the emergence of diverse genotypes and cross-species infections necessitates continued vigilance by public health agencies, including CDC and WHO, to preempt any unforeseen zoonotic spillover events.

Collectively, the epidemiology and transmission dynamics of avian hepatitis E virus are emblematic of a pathogen that is not only highly adaptable but also capable of exploiting both biological and environmental factors. These dynamic features underscore the need for integrated surveillance programs, improved biosecurity measures, and the development of targeted vaccines or therapeutics to effectively manage and curb the spread of aHEV in poultry populations.

Diagnostic Approaches and Molecular Detection Methods

The diagnosis of avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) infections has rapidly evolved from classical pathology-based and serological assays to advanced molecular detection methods offering increased sensitivity, specificity, and speed. The complexity of aHEV infection, manifesting as big liver and spleen disease, hepatitis-splenomegaly syndrome, or hepatic rupture hemorrhage syndrome, necessitates a multi-pronged diagnostic approach that incorporates molecular biology techniques alongside serological and histopathological evaluations. This section critically examines the latest diagnostic strategies and molecular tools used to detect aHEV, integrating insights from recent studies [1, 3, 5, 8, 16, 23].

Molecular Detection via RT-PCR Methodologies

Molecular detection methods have become the gold standard for diagnosing aHEV infection, largely due to the virus’ RNA genome and the challenges associated with culturing the pathogen in vitro. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a foundational technique employed to convert viral RNA into complementary DNA (cDNA), which is then amplified to detect even minute quantities of viral genetic material. Conventional RT-PCR and nested RT-PCR protocols have been routinely deployed to target conserved genomic regions, such as fragments within the ORF1 (encoding helicase) and ORF2 (capsid protein) genes [5, 8]. These methods have demonstrated high specificity; for instance, the targeted amplification of a 330-bp ORF2 fragment has been pivotal in confirming aHEV presence in field samples from cases showing hepatic lesions and systemic infection signs [1, 8].

Advancements in molecular biology have also led to the development of quantitative assays. A SYBR Green real-time RT-PCR assay, for instance, targets the ORF3 gene, a highly conserved region among aHEV strains, enabling not only qualitative but also quantitative detection of viral loads in serum, liver, spleen, and fecal samples [16]. This assay’s sensitivity, with a detection limit as low as 10 copies per microliter, has been particularly useful in monitoring early infections and evaluating viral shedding dynamics in experimental infection models [16]. Such quantitative methods are critical when evaluating both the epidemiological spread within poultry farms and the effectiveness of control measures, as recommended by international health organizations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Next Generation Sequencing and Genomic Characterization

Owing to the considerable genetic variability among aHEV strains, including the emergence of several novel genotypes, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become an essential tool in both the diagnostic and research settings. Whole genome sequencing not only ensures accurate strain identification but also facilitates phylogenetic analyses that contribute to epidemiological investigations and evolutionary studies [5, 9, 35]. In one study, the genomic sequence of aHEV extracted from clinical specimens was obtained using a combination of Nanopore and Illumina sequencing technologies, with subsequent recombination analysis suggesting genetic exchanges between geographically distinct strains [11]. Such high-resolution molecular data provide valuable information on transmission routes, viral evolution, and potential zoonotic risks, an issue underscored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) when dealing with economically critical and possibly zoonotic pathogens.

Serological Testing and Antibody Detection

While molecular methods offer rapid and precise detection of viral RNA, serological assays remain indispensable for diagnosing aHEV infections, particularly in the context of surveillance and retrospective studies. Competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (cELISAs) have been developed using innovative platforms such as nanobody-horseradish peroxidase (HRP) fusion proteins [3]. In one study, six specific nanobodies against the aHEV capsid protein were screened from an immunized camel library, and the avian HEV-Nb49-HRP fusion protein was used to create a highly sensitive and specific cELISA capable of detecting antibodies to aHEV across different avian species [3]. This method not only allows detection of seroconversion but is also cost-effective and rapid, qualities that are vital for large-scale surveillance programs recommended by international agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and FAO.

Serological tests provide complementary data to molecular assays; while RT-PCR confirms active infection through viral RNA detection, ELISA-based assays help ascertain whether birds have been previously exposed to the virus and have mounted an immune response. This dual approach is particularly beneficial in flocks showing subclinical infections or in cases where viral loads may be below the detection threshold of RT-PCR assays. Additionally, cross-reactivity studies using capsid proteins from different species of HEV have shed light on antigenic relationships and have guided the design of more robust serological assays tailored to avian hosts [34].

Immunohistochemistry and Tissue-Based Diagnostics

Histopathological examination remains a critical diagnostic tool for aHEV, particularly when clinical diagnosis is supported by gross lesions such as hepatosplenomegaly and hemorrhagic livers. Immunohistochemical techniques have been used to detect aHEV antigens directly in liver and spleen tissues, correlating the presence of viral proteins with tissue damage and inflammatory responses [1, 30]. This method utilizes polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies raised against specific aHEV proteins, thereby allowing pathologists to pinpoint sites of viral replication within affected tissues. Integration of molecular diagnostic methods with immunohistochemical analysis provides a comprehensive picture of both viral load and the associated pathological changes, an approach that enhances diagnostic accuracy and is particularly endorsed by research institutions globally.

Integration of Multiplex Approaches and Emerging Diagnostic Technologies

Recent efforts have focused on integrating multiplex RT-PCR assays capable of simultaneously screening for multiple pathogens associated with similar clinical syndromes. For instance, in several studies where aHEV co-infections with fowl adenovirus (FAdV), avian leukosis virus (ALV), and other immunosuppressive viruses have been reported [23, 25, 27, 33], multiplex testing protocols have been developed to differentiate between these agents rapidly. Such assays are invaluable in poultry production systems where mixed infections may complicate disease diagnosis and necessitate prompt and accurate identification to apply appropriate biosecurity measures.

In a related development, the construction of infectious cDNA clones and replicons has opened up new possibilities for diagnostic and vaccine research. These replicon systems enable the expression of heterologous genes, such as reporter proteins, and provide an innovative platform that could be repurposed not only for vaccine development but also for the validation of diagnostic assays in cell culture models [17]. Furthermore, studies mapping the critical domains of the aHEV capsid protein, such as the region spanning amino acids 471–507 essential for cell binding [18], contribute to the refinement of antigen targets for both serological and molecular diagnostic tests.

Quality Control, Standardization, and International Guidelines

An important aspect of diagnostic method implementation is the adherence to stringent quality control and standardization protocols. International guidelines provided by agencies like the CDC, WHO, and WOAH emphasize the need for validated and reproducible diagnostic assays, especially when dealing with viruses that have significant economic impacts and possible zoonotic potential. In the context of aHEV, ongoing efforts to standardize RT-PCR protocols and serological assays ensure that data obtained from different regions and laboratories are comparable, thereby facilitating global surveillance and control efforts.

The dynamic nature of aHEV, characterized by its genetic diversity and evolving epidemiology, demands that molecular diagnostic approaches be continually updated and validated against emerging viral strains. Integration of high-throughput sequencing data with classical diagnostic methods not only enhances assay sensitivity and specificity but also provides critical insights into viral evolution, enabling rapid adaptation of diagnostic protocols in response to new outbreaks.

Collectively, the combination of RT-PCR techniques, next-generation sequencing, serological assays such as competitive ELISA, and tissue-based immunohistochemistry forms a robust diagnostic framework for avian hepatitis E virus. These methodologies, supported by rigorous standardization and international oversight, are paramount to effective disease management in poultry production and contribute to broader efforts in controlling pathogens of emerging zoonotic importance.

Clinical Manifestations, Experimental Infections, and Pathological Findings

The clinical presentation of avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) infection encompasses a broad spectrum of signs that have been documented in natural outbreaks as well as controlled experimental settings. In field cases, infected flocks typically exhibit a notable decline in egg production alongside increased mortality rates. Affected chickens commonly present with hepatosplenomegaly, with gross lesions including liver enlargement, hemorrhagic spots, and splenic enlargement. These manifestations are critical not only because they serve as indicators for economic losses in the poultry industry but also because they contribute to the urgency underscored by international agencies such as the CDC, WHO, and WOAH regarding economically significant zoonotic and non-zoonotic pathogens [1, 7].

Clinical signs described in multiple outbreaks include decreased production performance, as evidenced by a drop in egg yields, as well as systemic clinical signs such as lethargy and a rise in mortality rates in chickens of various ages. For example, field cases have documented liver lesions with hemorrhagic foci and splenic congestion, which often correlate with elevated serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, indicative of hepatic injury [1, 8, 25]. In some outbreaks, co-infections with other avian pathogens, such as fowl adenovirus and avian leukosis virus, have been observed, potentially compounding the clinical severity and complicating the diagnostic landscape [23, 25].

Experimental Infections

Experimental infection studies have provided valuable insights into the pathogenesis and transmission dynamics of aHEV. Under controlled laboratory settings, administration of aHEV, via intravenous inoculation or the intrahepatic route, has reliably induced infection in specific-pathogen-free (SPF) chickens, quails, and even silkie fowl, offering a consistent model to study viral replication and host response [1, 24, 36]. In these studies, seroconversion is often detected within a few weeks post-infection, with consistent evidence of viral RNA in blood, bile, and fecal samples, thus affirming viremia and fecal shedding as hallmarks of the infection process [1, 25, 30].

One particularly compelling experimental study documented that inoculated birds developed measurable viremia, fecal virus shedding, and seroconversion, accompanied by a measurable delay in clinical marker appearance when heterologous aHEV strains were cross-infected between host species. In such experiments, birds inoculated with different genotypes exhibited variable timelines for seroconversion, with some showing delayed emergence of clinical signs by one to two weeks relative to the prototype strains [31]. These findings highlight the influence of viral genotype on pathogenicity, demonstrating that even subtle genetic variations can have pronounced effects on tissue tropism, immune response, and clinical progression. Additionally, experimental models employing molecular clones have enabled the reproducible study of these phenomena, allowing for investigations into the early phases of viral entry, replication, and subsequent induction of host inflammatory cascades [17, 36].

In vitro studies further elucidate the cellular mechanisms by which aHEV invades and replicates in hepatocytes. For example, experiments employing a truncated avian HEV capsid protein have demonstrated that specific regions of the ORF2 protein are critical for binding to host cell receptors present on avian liver cells, thereby facilitating cell entry and internalization [15, 18]. The interplay between viral entry proteins and host cellular proteins, such as organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1A2 (OATP1A2), has been shown to enhance viral adsorption and infection efficiency. Inhibition of these proteins notably reduces both viral binding and subsequent infection, a discovery that not only illuminates the early events of aHEV infection but also suggests potential targets for therapeutic intervention [15, 18].

Pathological Findings

Pathological examinations, both in naturally infected birds and those drawn from experimental studies, reveal a consistent pattern of liver and spleen involvement. Gross pathology frequently exhibits severely enlarged livers with a mottled appearance, hemorrhagic hemorrhages, and regions of necrosis intertwined with areas of regeneration. Spleens are also often markedly enlarged, occasionally exhibiting visible white nodules that correspond histologically to lymphocytic depletion or inflammatory infiltrates [1, 8, 27].

Microscopically, hepatic lesions are characterized by multifocal areas of hepatocellular necrosis, acute inflammatory infiltrates, and bile duct proliferation. Detailed histopathological evaluations have shown the presence of hepatocytic degeneration accompanied by significant inflammatory cell infiltration, predominantly lymphocytes, heterophils, and macrophages, indicative of both acute and chronic inflammatory responses. Additionally, experimental evaluations have noted that ultrastructural examinations can reveal substantial organelle damage within infected hepatocytes, including swollen mitochondria with loss of cristae integrity and dilated endoplasmic reticulum cisternae, findings that correlate with impaired cellular energy metabolism and protein synthesis during viral replication [8, 24].

Furthermore, experimental infection studies have consistently demonstrated that lesions extend beyond the liver. Spleen histology often reveals disruption of normal architecture with lymphoid depletion, vascular congestion, and focal hemorrhage. Some birds also display mild lesion patterns in kidney and intestinal tissues, suggesting a broader systemic distribution of the virus, although the liver remains the predominant target. Notably, in certain studies, aHEV infection has been linked with signs of immunosuppression, with concurrent findings of increased inflammatory cytokine expression and innate immune activation, which further amplify tissue damage and contribute to systemic clinical manifestations [22, 30].

The comparative analysis of pathogenicity between aHEV strains isolated from clinically affected versus clinically healthy birds has yielded further insights. In comparative studies, birds infected with strains isolated from symptomatic flocks tend to develop more pronounced hepatic lesions than those infected with strains from subclinical cases. For instance, birds inoculated with the prototype strain frequently presented with higher lesion scores, elevated serum biomarkers of liver injury, and more robust serological responses compared to those infected with the avian HEV-VA strain, though both groups revealed the fundamental pathological features of the disease [30, 36].

Collectively, these clinical, experimental, and pathological findings enhance our understanding of aHEV as a pathogen that poses significant challenges to poultry health. The detailed investigation into its clinical manifestations, the use of rigorous experimental infection models, and meticulous pathological studies all underscore the complex interplay between viral genotype, host response, and environmental factors, a multifactorial dynamic that remains at the forefront of current veterinary research on emerging poultry pathogens [1, 8, 23, 24, 30].

Coinfections of Avian Hepatitis E Virus

Avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) frequently coexists with other viral pathogens in poultry, complicating both clinical outcomes and the epidemiological landscape. Multiple studies have revealed that coinfections are not uncommon and may exacerbate disease severity. For instance, several investigations in Chinese flocks have highlighted coinfections between aHEV and fowl adenovirus (FAdV), where the coexistence of FAdV serotypes 4, 8a, and 8b with aHEV was directly linked to outbreaks causing decreased egg production and hepatic lesions characteristic of hepatitis-splenomegaly syndrome [23, 33]. In some cases, coinfections with avian leukosis virus subgroup J (ALV-J) have also been documented, further complicating the clinical manifestations by contributing to hepatic necrosis and hemorrhagic lesions as seen in both broiler breeders and layer hens [25]. Additionally, an epidemiological survey involving flocks with hepatic rupture hemorrhage syndrome (HRHS) revealed that mixed infections, including aHEV together with ALV, fowl adenovirus, and chicken infectious anemia virus, were prevalent, indicating that coexisting viral agents may synergistically contribute to the pathogenesis of liver lesions and other clinical signs [27, 32].

The interrelationship between these viral agents can potentiate liver damage, as coinfection may lead to an increased inflammatory response, enhanced viral replication, and even immunosuppression. For example, coinfections may compromise the host’s protective immune responses, rendering birds more susceptible to secondary infections and exacerbating the clinical severity of aHEV-induced disease. This phenomenon has significant economic implications for poultry operations, confirmed by recent data from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which highlight the economic burden imposed by coinfections in avian populations.

Differential Diagnosis in the Context of AHEV Infection

Distinguishing aHEV infection from other hepatic and systemic infections in poultry remains a critical challenge. Clinically, aHEV is associated with diseases such as big liver and spleen disease (BLS) and hepatitis-splenomegaly syndrome, which share common pathology with other viral infections. Differential diagnosis must consider overlapping clinical signs including hepatosplenomegaly, hepatic rupture, hemorrhagic lesions, and decreased egg production. Molecular diagnostic techniques such as reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and serological assays, including competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (cELISA) developed with nanobody-horseradish peroxidase fusion proteins, have been deployed to differentiate aHEV from other co‐infecting pathogens [3, 38].

Clinicians must also differentiate between similar presentations caused by fowl adenovirus, ALV-J, infectious bronchitis virus, and chicken infectious anemia virus, especially in regions where mixed infections occur. The differential diagnosis is further complicated by the fact that host immune responses may be altered by coinfections, modifying cytokine profiles and masking typical clinical signs. For instance, in cases where both ALV-J and aHEV are present, histopathological evidence of hepatocytic necrosis and lymphocytic infiltration must be carefully interpreted in conjunction with molecular assay results to reach an accurate diagnosis [25]. Diagnostic strategies recommended by major health authorities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and WOAH emphasize the integration of molecular diagnostics with clinical observations and histopathological findings to improve the precision of diagnosis in economically critical pathogens like aHEV.

Immunopathogenesis of Avian Hepatitis E Virus

At the molecular and cellular levels, the immunopathogenesis of aHEV involves a complex interplay between viral components and host immune responses. Central to this process is the interaction of viral capsid proteins with host cellular factors, which can dictate the efficiency of virus entry and subsequent replication. Recent investigations have demonstrated that the aHEV ORF2 protein interacts with host proteins such as Rap1b and organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1A2 (OATP1A2) [2, 15]. The interaction with Rap1b initiates a cascade leading to the recruitment of downstream effector molecules that modulate actin rearrangement, thereby facilitating virus internalization. This cascade involves the activation of integrin α5/β1 and focal adhesion kinase (FAK), followed by downstream activation of small GTPases like CDC42 and RAC1 that ultimately lead to cytoskeletal reorganization. Such mechanisms reveal how aHEV exploits host cell machinery to promote its entry and spread.

In addition, the host’s innate immune response plays a pivotal role in the immunopathogenesis of aHEV infection. In vivo and in vitro studies have shown that aHEV infection triggers the upregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-18, mediated via Toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) pathways [22]. The activation of these pathways, along with the concomitant induction of caspase-1 and NOD-like receptor (NLR) signaling, underscores the role of innate immune mechanisms in determining the outcome of the infection. These early innate responses may help control viral replication; however, an excessive or dysregulated inflammatory response may contribute to liver damage, as evidenced by hepatocytic necrosis and hemorrhagic lesions observed in severe cases [9, 22].

Furthermore, coinfections with immunosuppressive viruses such as ALV-J have been shown to perturb the cytokine milieu in the liver, further complicating the immunological landscape. ALV-J, for instance, can modulate immune responses by inducing immunosuppression, thereby potentially enhancing aHEV replication and persistence in the host [25, 27]. This dual impact, direct virus-induced cytopathology combined with immunomodulation due to coinfections, can amplify the severity of liver disease and expedite the progression of pathological changes. As the immune system attempts to control the virus through both humoral and cellular responses, the resulting immune-mediated liver damage represents a critical component of the immunopathogenic profile of aHEV infection.

The role of adaptive immunity is also significant. Although most infected birds seroconvert within weeks of exposure, the kinetics of antibody production can vary depending on the genotype or the presence of coinfections. For example, differences in seroconversion profiles have been noted between the prototype aHEV strains and those isolated from clinically healthy chickens, suggesting that variations in viral genotype may influence antigenicity and the subsequent immune response [30, 36]. In experimental settings, immunomodulatory strategies combining type I interferon with specific antisera have demonstrated a significant reduction in viremia and viral shedding [37]. Such findings indicate that therapeutic modulation of immune responses could provide novel avenues for controlling aHEV infections even in the presence of coinfections.

Integration of these immunopathogenic insights is critical for the development of effective diagnostic and therapeutic protocols. Application of advanced molecular techniques and immunological assays promoted by international bodies such as the CDC and WOAH continues to be essential for unraveling the host-pathogen interactions that underlie aHEV infections. This integrated approach is indispensable in mitigating economic losses in the poultry industry through improved management of coinfections and better-informed vaccine design.

Control Strategies

Effective control of avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) requires a multifaceted approach that integrates advanced diagnostic techniques, vaccination development, biosecurity enhancements, and improved management practices. Diagnostic breakthroughs such as the recently developed competitive ELISA based on nanobody-horseradish peroxidase fusion proteins allow for rapid and sensitive detection of aHEV antibodies, providing a robust tool for early outbreak detection and routine surveillance in poultry flocks [3]. These serological tests, which eliminate the cross-reactivity seen in earlier assays by targeting specific immunodominant epitopes on the viral capsid protein, lay the foundation for precise and timely intervention.

In addition to diagnostics, development of vaccines represents a critical control strategy. Recently, ORF3 subunit vaccines have been engineered for both laying hens and broilers, demonstrating promising results in reducing viral shedding and preventing clinical disease [4]. Although cell culture limitations have historically impeded extensive vaccine research, innovative approaches such as cloning viral replicons that express heterologous genes are being explored as potential RNA vaccine platforms [17]. These replicons could not only facilitate research into viral replication and immunogenicity but also serve as platforms for delivering multivalent vaccines targeting concurrently circulating avian pathogens.

Adjunct to vaccination, antiviral strategies using type I interferon, alone or in combination with specific antiserum, have shown inhibitory effects on aHEV replication both in vitro and in vivo [37]. Such strategies could be integrated into an emergency response protocol during outbreaks, especially on farms where co-infections with other viruses like fowl adenovirus or avian leukosis virus further complicate the disease dynamics [23, 25]. Coupled with therapeutic approaches, biosecurity measures have emerged as essential, especially in minimizing fecal-oral transmission during housing and management. Investigations comparing housing arrangements illustrate that strictly caged environments can reduce the contact between birds and contaminated feces, thereby significantly lowering aHEV transmission rates relative to cage-free setups [28].

Control strategies also encompass overarching surveillance systems promoted by international organizations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). These agencies, in conjunction with national bodies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), stress the need for comprehensive epidemiological surveys and molecular diagnostics to monitor viral spread and emergence of new genotypes across geographic regions [7]. Adoption of such integrated surveillance frameworks empowers stakeholders to implement timely interventions that mitigate both the spread and recurrence of the infection.

Economic Impact

The economic impact of aHEV on the global poultry industry is substantial. Outbreaks of avian hepatitis E virus are directly associated with decreased egg production, increased mortality, and subclinical infections that subtly erode production efficiency. For instance, clinical reports from China document significant drops in egg production alongside increased mortality rates in flocks infected with aHEV [1, 25]. In addition to immediate production losses, there are longer-term economic consequences including increased veterinary costs, additional investments in biosecurity, and the expenses associated with diagnostic testing and vaccination programs.

Studies from regions such as Poland and Nigeria, using molecular detection methods, have highlighted a concerning prevalence of aHEV across diverse avian species, elucidating its potential impact on both large-scale commercial operations and smallholder farms [5, 10]. In commercial settings, a reduction in the weekly egg output, as evidenced in layer flocks, along with a concomitant rise in feed and water consumption in seropositive sheds, underscore the negative cost-benefit balance created by aHEV infections [29]. Such economic burdens extend beyond direct losses in productivity; they also entail indirect costs including trade restrictions, compensation claims during outbreak investigations, and the necessity for stricter regulatory compliance prompted by the involvement of international bodies like the FAO.

Furthermore, coinfections of aHEV with other immunosuppressive or hepatic pathogens such as fowl adenovirus and avian leukosis virus exacerbate the economic damage by complicating the clinical picture and inciting more severe disease outbreaks [23, 25]. This multiplicative effect not only heightens mortality and morbidity rates but also requires more extensive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The overall unpredictability of virus behavior, including the reported variation in pathogenicity among different aHEV genotypes [6, 9, 27], creates additional uncertainty for producers, often necessitating conservative enterprise management strategies that can further impact profitability.

Biosecurity improvements, though essential to control spread, impose significant operational costs that can be particularly burdensome for smaller-scale producers. The need for continual monitoring, sanitization protocols, and housing adjustments, such as transitioning from cage-free to caged systems, represent investments that may only become justifiable in the context of repeated or severe viral outbreaks [28]. In this light, the economic rationale for investing in advanced diagnostic tools and effective vaccines is strong, as preventive measures ultimately prove more cost-efficient than reactive measures post-outbreak.

Future Research Directions

Future research on avian hepatitis E virus must address several critical knowledge gaps that currently impede efficacious control and management of the disease. One pressing challenge is the development of an efficient and reproducible cell culture system for aHEV. Current limitations in propagating the virus in vitro have hampered deeper investigations into its replication mechanisms and host cell interactions. Innovative approaches, such as the construction of infectious clones and replicon systems that express heterologous proteins, are promising avenues that could unlock further understanding of viral pathogenesis and illuminate novel antiviral targets [17, 36]. Additionally, understanding the role of host cell receptors, such as organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1A2 (OATP1A2), in mediating viral entry offers critical insights into potential therapeutic interventions. Recent studies illustrating the interaction between OATP1A2 and the viral capsid protein [15] open new avenues for the design of receptor-blocking agents that could impair viral attachment and subsequent infection.

In-depth genomic and molecular epidemiology studies remain paramount as well. With the emergence of new genotypes and subtypes, such as the recently identified genotype 7 and novel subtypes within genotype 3 [6, 27, 39], it is imperative to continue sequencing efforts to track viral evolution and recombination events. Such genetic diversity not only impacts the clinical and pathogenic profile of the virus but also has serious implications for vaccine design. There is an urgent need for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to delineate the genetic determinants of virulence, tissue tropism, and host range expansion. These insights would be invaluable for designing cross-protective vaccines and predicting potential zoonotic spillover, a concern that persists even if aHEV has not yet been widely recognized as a zoonotic threat.

Further investigation into the immunopathogenesis of aHEV is necessary. The virus’s capacity to induce inflammatory responses and modulate innate immunity, through activation of Toll-like receptors, NF-κB, and MAPK pathways, has been demonstrated in both in vivo and in vitro models [22]. Understanding the interplay between viral proteins, such as ORF2 and ORF3, and host immune signaling pathways could lead to the identification of novel immunomodulatory therapeutics. These could mitigate destructive inflammatory responses while promoting protective immunity, thereby reducing the economic impact of infection on flocks.

Given the economic implications recognized by international bodies such as the CDC and WHO for economically significant animal pathogens, future research should also prioritize the establishment of integrated surveillance systems. These networks would not only monitor aHEV prevalence and evolution but also facilitate rapid response strategies in the event of outbreaks, thereby reducing both the economic and public health risks associated with aHEV infections. Cross-border collaborative studies, supported by organizations like the FAO and WOAH, could catalyze the development and validation of standardized diagnostic protocols and vaccine candidates across different geographical regions.

Finally, exploring the potential of antiviral drug combinations, including interferon-based therapies, holds promise in the development of therapeutic interventions that can complement vaccination and biosecurity measures. Continued preclinical and field studies evaluating the efficacy of such combination therapies are essential, particularly given the increasing reports of coinfections that complicate the clinical management of aHEV [25, 37]. Such multifaceted research efforts are vital to ensure that control strategies remain robust, cost-effective, and adaptable in the face of the evolving genetic and pathogenic landscape of avian hepatitis E virus.

References

[1] Li J, Zhang Y, Liu J, Xu S, Gao X, Li X, et al.. Identification and pathogenicity of avian hepatitis E virus from quail. BMC Veterinary Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04531-3

[2] Zhang B, Fan M, Fan J, Luo Y, Wang J, Wang Y, et al.. Avian Hepatitis E Virus ORF2 Protein Interacts with Rap1b to Induce Cytoskeleton Rearrangement That Facilitates Virus Internalization. Microbiology spectrum. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02265-21

[3] Chen T, Liu B, Chen Y, Wang X, Zhang M, Dang X, et al.. Development of a novel competitive ELISA based on nanobody-horseradish peroxidase fusion protein for rapid detection of antibodies against avian hepatitis E virus. Poultry Science. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102326

[4] Yan H, Chi Z, Zhao H, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, et al.. Application of ORF3 Subunit Vaccine for Avian Hepatitis E Virus. Veterinary Sciences. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9120676

[5] Siedlecka M, Kublicka A, Wieliczko A, Matczuk A. Molecular detection of avian hepatitis E virus (Orthohepevirus B) in chickens, ducks, geese, and western capercaillies in Poland. PLoS ONE. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269854

[6] Matos M, Bilic I, Tvarogová J, Palmieri N, Furmanek D, Gotowiecka M, et al.. A novel genotype of avian hepatitis E virus identified in chickens and common pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), extending its host range. Scientific Reports. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26103-3

[7] Sun P, Lin S, He S, Zhou E, Zhao Q. Avian Hepatitis E Virus: With the Trend of Genotypes and Host Expansion. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01696

[8] Zhang Y, Zhao H, Chi Z, Cui Z, Chang S, Wang Y, et al.. Isolation, identification and genome analysis of an avian hepatitis E virus from white-feathered broilers in China. Poultry Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101633

[9] Su Q, Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Cui Z, Chang S, Zhao P. Complete genome analysis of avian hepatitis E virus from chicken with hepatic rupture hemorrhage syndrome.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108577

[10] Osamudiamen FT, Akanbi O, Zander S, Oluwayelu D, Bock C, Klink P. Identification of a Putative Novel Genotype of Avian Hepatitis E Virus from Apparently Healthy Chickens in Southwestern Nigeria. Viruses. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13060954

[11] Asif K, O’Rourke D, Shil P, Noormohammadi A, Marenda M. Characterisation of the whole genome sequence of an avian hepatitis E virus directly from clinical specimens reveals possible recombination events between European and USA strains.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2021.105095

[12] Su Q, Liu Y, Cui Z, Chang S, Zhao P. Genetic diversity of avian hepatitis E virus in China, 2018-2019.. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13578

[13] Matczuk A, Ćwiek K, Wieliczko A. Avian hepatitis E virus is widespread among chickens in Poland and belongs to genotype 2. Archives of Virology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-018-4089-y

[14] Liu B, Fan M, Zhang B, Chen Y, Sun Y, Du T, et al.. Avian hepatitis E virus infection of duck, goose, and rabbit in northwest China. Emerging Microbes and Infections. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41426-018-0075-4

[15] Li H, Fan M, Liu B, Ji P, Chen Y, Zhang B, et al.. Chicken Organic Anion-Transporting Polypeptide 1A2, a Novel Avian Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) ORF2-Interacting Protein, Is Involved in Avian HEV Infection. Journal of Virology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02205-18

[16] Zhao Q, Xie S, Sun Y, Chen Y, Gao J, Li H, et al.. Development and evaluation of a SYBR Green real-time RT-PCR assay for detection of avian hepatitis E virus. BMC Veterinary Research. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-015-0507-5

[17] Moon H, Sung H, Park J, Kwon H. Construction of an avian hepatitis E virus replicon expressing heterologous genes and evaluation of its potential as an RNA vaccine platform. . 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14405/kjvr.2021.61.e11

[18] Zhang X, Bilic I, Marek A, Glösmann M, Hess M. C-Terminal Amino Acids 471-507 of Avian Hepatitis E Virus Capsid Protein Are Crucial for Binding to Avian and Human Cells. PLoS ONE. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153723

[19] Zhao Q, Zhou E, Dong S, Qiu H, Zhang L, Hu S, et al.. Analysis of Avian Hepatitis E Virus from Chickens, China. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1609.100626

[20] Nerc J, Szeleszczuk P. Classification, structure and molecular diagnostics of avian hepatitis E virus. Medycyna Weterynaryjna. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21521/mw.6228

[21] Matos M, Bilic I, Kőrösi L, Hasan R, Liebhart D, Palmieri N, et al.. Identification of the Recently Described Avian Hepatitis E Genotype 7 in an Outbreak of Hepatitis-Splenomegaly Syndrome (HSS) with High Mortality and Severe Drop in Egg Production in a Parent Stock Flock in Bangladesh. Poultry. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4020016

[22] Zhang Y, Chi Z, Cui Z, Chang S, Wang Y, Zhao P. Inflammatory response triggered by avian hepatitis E virus in vivo and in vitro. Frontiers in Immunology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1161665

[23] Zhang Y, Xu H, Tian Y, Tang J, Lin H, Sun Y, et al.. Coinfection of avian hepatitis E virus and different serotypes of fowl adenovirus in chicken flocks in Shaanxi, China. Microbiology spectrum. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01338-24

[24] Liu B, Chen Y, Zhao L, Zhang M, Ren X, Zhang Y, et al.. Identification and pathogenicity of a novel genotype avian hepatitis E virus from silkie fowl (gallus gallus).. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108688

[25] Sun Y, Lu Q, Zhang J, Li X, Zhao J, Fan W, et al.. Co-infection with avian hepatitis E virus and avian leukosis virus subgroup J as the cause of an outbreak of hepatitis and liver hemorrhagic syndromes in a brown layer chicken flock in China. Poultry Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.10.067

[26] Liu K, Meng F, Zhao J, Zhao Y, Geng N, Wang S, et al.. Research Note: The prevalence and vertical transmission of avian hepatitis E virus novel genotypes in Tai'an city, China. Poultry Science. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102103

[27] Su Q, Zhang Y, Li Y, Cui Z, Chang S, Zhao P. Epidemiological investigation of the novel genotype avian hepatitis E virus and co‐infected immunosuppressive viruses in farms with hepatic rupture haemorrhage syndrome, recently emerged in China. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13082

[28] Liu B, Sun Y, Chen Y, Du T, Nan Y, Wang X, et al.. Effect of housing arrangement on fecal-oral transmission of avian hepatitis E virus in chicken flocks. BMC Veterinary Research. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1203-4

[29] Hewitt S, Chousalkar K, Patel K, McWhorter AR. Avian hepatitis E seroprevalence and its association with production parameters in layer hens.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2025.110415

[30] Billam P, LeRoith T, Pudupakam RS, Pierson F, Duncan R, Meng X. Comparative pathogenesis in specific-pathogen-free chickens of two strains of avian hepatitis E virus recovered from a chicken with Hepatitis-Splenomegaly syndrome and from a clinically healthy chicken, respectively. Veterinary Microbiology. 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.06.008

[31] Chen Y, Xu S, Tang Y, Zhang C, Nie L, Zhao Q, et al.. Pathogenicity of two different genotypes avian hepatitis E strains in laying hens and silkie fowl.. Virology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2024.110154

[32] Liu K, Zhao Y, Zhao J, Geng N, Meng F, Wang S, et al.. The diagnosis and molecular epidemiology investigation of avian hepatitis E in Shandong province, China. BMC Veterinary Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-021-03079-2

[33] Hou L, Chi Z, Zhang Y, Xue Q, Zhai T, Chang S, et al.. Natural co-infection of fowl adenovirus type E-8b and avian hepatitis E virus in parental layer breeders in Hebei, China. Virologica Sinica. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virs.2023.01.004

[34] Sun Y, Yan W, Chen X, Liu Q, Ji P, Zhu J, et al.. Antigenic cross-reactivity among human, swine, rabbit and avian hepatitis E virus capsid proteins.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2022.109331

[35] Zhang X, Li W, Yuan S, Guo J, Li Z, Chi S, et al.. Meta-transcriptomic analysis reveals a new subtype of genotype 3 avian hepatitis E virus in chicken flocks with high mortality in Guangdong, China. BMC Veterinary Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1884-y

[36] Kwon H, LeRoith T, Pudupakam RS, Pierson F, Huang Y, Dryman B, et al.. Construction of an infectious cDNA clone of avian hepatitis E virus (avian HEV) recovered from a clinically healthy chicken in the United States and characterization of its pathogenicity in specific-pathogen-free chickens. Veterinary Microbiology. 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.07.016

[37] Yan H, Sun W, Wang J, Gao Q, Zhang Y, Wang Y, et al.. Combined inhibitory effect of interferon and antiserum on avian hepatitis E virus.. Poultry Science. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102591

[38] Hsu I, Tsai H. Avian Hepatitis E Virus in Chickens, Taiwan, 2013. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2001.131224

[39] Li H, Zhang F, Tan M, Zeng Y, Yang Q, Tan J, et al.. Research Note: A putative novel subtype of the avian hepatitis E virus of genotype 3, Jiangxi province, China. Poultry Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.083