Infectious Bursal Disease Virus

Overview and Taxonomy of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus

Overview of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus

Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is the etiological agent of Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD), also known as Gumboro disease, an acute, highly contagious, and immunosuppressive affliction of young chickens that poses a persistent and substantial threat to global poultry production [1, 14, 17]. The virus is classified within the family Birnaviridae, genus Avibirnavirus, and is characterized by a unique, non-enveloped icosahedral capsid architecture that encloses a bi-segmented double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genome [2, 20, 23]. This bipartite genome, comprising segments designated A and B, is a defining feature of the Birnaviridae family and underpins the virus's capacity for genetic variation through reassortment, a mechanism that has profound implications for its evolution, virulence, and antigenic profile [2, 19, 22]. The disease is of paramount economic importance to the poultry industry, not only due to direct mortality and morbidity from primary infection, but significantly because of the profound and persistent immunosuppression it induces, which renders surviving birds highly susceptible to secondary bacterial, viral, and parasitic infections and leads to suboptimal responses to routine vaccinations [1, 14, 21]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes IBD as a notifiable disease, underscoring its significance for international trade and poultry health security.

Taxonomy and Phylogenetic Classification

The taxonomy of IBDV has undergone a significant and necessary evolution from a descriptive, phenotype-based system to a robust, molecular phylogeny-driven genotypic framework. Historically, serotype 1 IBDV strains, which are pathogenic in chickens, were classified into three primary phenotypic categories based on their antigenic and pathogenic characteristics: classic (or classical) strains, which caused moderate disease and mortality; antigenic variant strains, first identified in the United States in the 1980s, which exhibited altered antigenicity and could break through immunity induced by classic vaccines; and very virulent (vv) strains, which emerged in Europe in the late 1980s and caused dramatic mortality and severe bursal lesions [11, 14, 19, 23]. A second serotype, serotype 2, was identified in turkeys and other avian species but is considered non-pathogenic in chickens [14, 19, 23]. This traditional nomenclature, however, became increasingly inadequate as molecular characterization revealed a far greater diversity, including strains that were genetically vv-like but phenotypically less virulent, and the existence of novel antigenic variants that could not be neatly placed into the classic or variant categories [11, 19, 24]. The reliance on pathotype and antigenic profile, which lack standardized testing, created confusion and hindered global epidemiological comparisons [19].

The advent of rapid sequencing technologies catalyzed a paradigm shift towards a genotypic classification system. Early proposals, such as that by Michel and Jackwood (2017), utilized phylogenetic analysis of the hypervariable region of the VP2 gene (hvVP2), the major host-protective antigen encoded by segment A, to define seven major genogroups (1-7) [11]. This approach marked a critical step towards a standardized, sequence-based taxonomy. However, a truly comprehensive classification system must account for the bi-segmented nature of the IBDV genome, as reassortment events, the exchange of entire genome segments between different parental viruses, are a major driver of viral diversity and can result in strains with novel pathogenic and antigenic properties [2, 8, 16, 25, 28].

This necessity led to the development of a unified, dual-segment genotypic classification scheme, which has been widely adopted by the research community. This scheme, refined by multiple groups including Wang et al. (2021) and Islam et al. (2021), classifies IBDV strains based on phylogenetic analysis of both segment A (typically using a specific fragment of the VP2 gene) and segment B (typically using a fragment of the VP1 gene, which encodes the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase) [2, 8].

Segment A Genogroups

The unified classification for segment A defines nine distinct genogroups, all under serotype 1, plus a separate group for serotype 2 [2, 8]. These are designated A0 through A8, with sub-lineages identified within specific genogroups (e.g., A2a, A2b, A2d) to capture finer evolutionary relationships [2, 8]. The major serotype 1 genogroups correspond to well-known pathotypes and lineages:

• A1: Corresponds to classical and classical-like strains, including the original prototype strains [2, 12].
• A2: Originally encompassing US antigenic variant strains, this genogroup has expanded significantly. It is now further divided into several lineages (A2a, A2b, A2c, A2d), with the A2d lineage representing the novel variant IBDV (nVarIBDV) strains that have emerged as a dominant epidemic threat in Asia [3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]. These nVarIBDV strains are antigenically and molecularly distinct from both the classic US variants and the vvIBDVs [7, 9].
• A3: Designates very virulent (vv) IBDV strains, which have a near-global distribution and cause acute, often lethal disease [2, 3, 5, 12, 18].
• A4: Represents the distinct or dIBDV lineage, a globally distributed group of strains that share unique genetic markers and antigenic profiles [2, 24].
• A5: The atypical Mexican genogroup [2].
• A6: The atypical Italian (ITA) genogroup, identified in vaccinated flocks without overt clinical signs [2, 26].
• A7: The early Australian genogroup [2].
• A8: The Australian variant genogroup, which also includes many cell-culture attenuated vaccine strains [2, 12].
• A0: The single genogroup for all serotype 2 strains [2].

This detailed classification allows for the precise identification of newly emerging strains and reveals the complex phylodynamics of IBDV, such as the recent shift in China from a predominance of A3 (vvIBDV) to a co-circulation of A3 and A2d (nVarIBDV) strains [6, 10, 12].

Segment B Genogroups and Genotype Definition

The classification of segment B is independent of serotype and identifies at least five genogroups (B1–B5) [2, 8]:

• B1: The classical-like genogroup, which includes many vaccine strains (e.g., D78) and most serotype 2 strains [2, 5, 8].
• B2: The very virulent-like genogroup, typically associated with vvIBDV segment A in a "classic" vvIBDV genotype [2, 8, 16].
• B3: The early Australian-like genogroup [2]. A particularly noteworthy finding is that many recently emerged nVarIBDV strains (A2d) in China possess a segment B that belongs to this B3 genogroup, resulting in a common A2dB1 or A2dB3 genotype [6, 12, 13].
• B4: Includes strains from Poland and Tanzania [2, 5].
• B5: Includes strains from Nigeria [2, 27].

The power of the dual-segment classification is that genotypes are defined by the specific combination of segment A and segment B genogroups. For example, a classical IBDV strain is A1B1, a US variant is A2B1, a very virulent strain is A3B2, and many attenuated vaccine strains are A8B1 [8]. The emergence of novel reassortants, such as the A3B1 (vvIBDV segment A with classical-like segment B) or A2dB3 (nVarIBDV segment A with Australian-like segment B) genotypes, demonstrates how reassortment can create viruses with unique biological properties, including altered virulence and antigenicity [5, 13, 15, 16, 25]. This robust genotypic framework, with its ability to accommodate future discoveries, is now the standard for molecular epidemiological studies, providing the necessary granularity to track the emergence, spread, and evolution of this economically devastating pathogen in an era of intensive poultry production and globalized trade.

Molecular Pathogenesis of IBDV: Replication and Host Factor Interactions

The molecular pathogenesis of infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is a paradigm of viral subversion of host cellular machinery, orchestrated by a limited repertoire of multifunctional proteins acting upon a bipartite double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genome. As a member of the Birnaviridae family, IBDV exhibits a unique replication strategy that distinguishes it from canonical dsRNA viruses like the Reoviridae. Unlike reoviruses, which maintain their genome within a transcriptionally active inner core throughout the replication cycle, IBDV organizes its dsRNA genome into ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes, a structural feature that necessitates a more intimate association with host cell membranes and signaling pathways [20, 34]. This fundamental architectural difference underpins the virus’s reliance on a dynamic interplay with host factors for genome replication, transcription, translation, and eventual egress. The pathogenesis is further characterized by a profound tropism for actively dividing B lymphocytes within the bursa of Fabricius (BF), leading to rapid lymphoid depletion, immunosuppression, and, in the case of very virulent strains (vvIBDV), systemic inflammation and high mortality [1, 14, 18].

The Replication Complex: Hijacking Endosomal Membranes and Phosphoinositide Signaling

The establishment of viral replication complexes (VRCs) is a critical early step in the IBDV life cycle. Landmark studies have demonstrated that IBDV, akin to positive-sense single-stranded RNA (+ssRNA) viruses, commandeers host endosomal membranes as the scaffolding platform for its replication [20, 34]. This interaction is mediated by the multifunctional structural protein VP3, the major component of the viral RNP. VP3 possesses an intrinsic ability to bind to the cytosolic leaflet of early endosomes, an association that is critically dependent on the host lipid phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate [PtdIns(3)P] [20]. The VP3 Patch 2 (P2) domain has been identified as the key effector region mediating this membrane association. Overexpression of the VP3 P2 domain in avian cells acts as a dominant-negative inhibitor, significantly reducing intra- and extracellular virus yields and VP2 expression, thereby confirming the functional relevance of this membrane-targeting mechanism for productive infection [34].

The reliance on PtdIns(3)P, a phospholipid produced by the class III phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) Vps34, places IBDV replication under the control of a master regulator of endosomal trafficking and signaling. Pharmacological inhibition of PI3K or depletion of PtdIns(3)P severely abrogates IBDV replication, highlighting this phosphoinositide as a non-redundant host factor [20]. This strategy not only provides a physical platform for concentrating viral RNA, VP1 (the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, RdRp), and VP3 but also likely facilitates the spatial coordination of viral RNA synthesis with the translation of viral proteins, a feature reminiscent of the replication complexes of +ssRNA viruses. This evolutionary convergence reinforces the hypothesis that birnaviruses represent an intermediary link between +ssRNA and dsRNA viruses [34].

Post-Translational Regulation of the VP1 Polymerase: A Nexus of Host Kinase and Methyltransferase Activity

The enzymatic heart of the replication complex is VP1, the viral RdRp. Its activity is not constitutive but is exquisitely regulated by the host cell through multiple post-translational modifications (PTMs), a process that the virus has evolved to exploit. Two distinct PTMs, phosphorylation and arginine methylation, have been demonstrated to be essential for optimal VP1 polymerase function and viral propagation.

CDK1-Cyclin B1-Mediated Phosphorylation: The cell cycle regulator cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1), in complex with its partner cyclin B1, has been identified as a critical host kinase that phosphorylates VP1 [30]. IBDV infection actively triggers the cytoplasmic accumulation of the CDK1-cyclin B1 complex, translocating it from its typical nuclear location to colocalize with VP1 in the cytoplasm. This interaction results in the specific phosphorylation of VP1 at serine residue 7 (Ser7), a site conforming to the optimal CDK1 phosphorylation motif (p-S/T-P). Mutation of this residue (S7A) leads to a profound defect in VP1 polymerase activity and a corresponding decrease in viral replication. Furthermore, treatment with the specific CDK1 inhibitor RO3306 or knockdown of CDK1/cyclin B1 dramatically suppresses IBDV replication, confirming the dependency of the virus on this host kinase for its life cycle [30].

PRMT5-Mediated Arginine Methylation: In addition to phosphorylation, VP1 is subject to methylation by protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) [29]. PRMT5 is a type II arginine methyltransferase that catalyzes the symmetric dimethylation of arginine residues. Following IBDV infection, PRMT5 accumulates in the cytoplasm, where it interacts with and methylates VP1 at arginine 426 (R426). This modification is crucial for supporting the RdRp activity of VP1. Ectopic expression of PRMT5 enhances viral replication, whereas inhibition or knockout of PRMT5 significantly restricts it. Mutation of the target arginine (R426A) severely damages VP1 polymerase function, mirroring the effects seen with the S7A phosphorylation mutant [29, 30]. The convergence of these two distinct PTMs on a single viral protein underscores a sophisticated viral strategy: the virus has evolved to "hijack" host cell regulatory enzymes to fine-tune the activity of its core replicase, ensuring efficient genome replication only under favorable cellular conditions.

Host Restriction Factors and Innate Immune Evasion: The TRIM25-VP3 Axis and MicroRNA Regulation

While IBDV manipulates host pathways for its benefit, the host cell mounts a counteroffensive through intrinsic antiviral factors. One such factor is tripartite motif-containing protein 25 (TRIM25), an E3 ubiquitin ligase known for its role in the RIG-I-like receptor (RLR) signaling pathway [31]. Transcriptomic analysis of IBDV-infected avian cells revealed TRIM25 as a potent host restriction factor. TRIM25 specifically targets the VP3 protein for K27-linked polyubiquitination, a non-canonical ubiquitin chain type that targets VP3 for proteasomal degradation. The critical ubiquitination site on VP3 has been mapped to lysine 854 (K854). Mutation of this site (K854R) enhances the replication ability of IBDV both in vitro and in vivo, suggesting that TRIM25-mediated degradation of VP3 is a bona fide antiviral mechanism that limits viral replication by destabilizing the RNP complex [31].

At the RNA level, the host employs microRNAs (miRNAs) to suppress IBDV replication. Notably, gga-miR-454 has been shown to directly target a specific sequence within the IBDV genomic segment B, which encodes VP1 [33]. This direct interaction inhibits viral replication. Furthermore, gga-miR-454 indirectly enhances the host antiviral state by targeting the cellular mRNA of Suppressor of Cytokine Signaling 6 (SOCS6). SOCS6 is a negative regulator of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway, and its suppression by miR-454 leads to increased expression of interferon-β (IFN-β), thereby amplifying the innate antiviral response [33]. The downregulation of gga-miR-454 during IBDV infection represents a viral countermeasure to neutralize this layer of host defense, allowing for increased viral replication.

Cellular Entry: The Identification of Chicken CD44 as a B Lymphocyte Receptor

The precise mechanism of IBDV entry into its target B cells has long been elusive. Recent advances have identified the chicken transmembrane glycoprotein cluster of differentiation 44 (chCD44) as a critical cellular receptor for IBDV [32]. Mass spectrometry screening of bursal lymphocyte proteins interacting with the major capsid protein VP2 pinpointed chCD44. Overexpression of chCD44 in permissive cells enhances IBDV replication, while its knockdown inhibits it. Crucially, soluble chCD44 protein and anti-chCD44 antibodies can block virus binding to cells. In a definitive demonstration of receptor function, ectopic expression of chCD44 in non-permissive cells (which normally resist infection) conferred the ability for IBDV to bind and enter, although the virus could not complete its replication cycle in these cells, indicating that additional host factors are required for post-entry steps [32]. This discovery is a major advance, defining the initial molecular handshake between the virus and its host cell, and providing a potential target for novel antiviral interventions.

Adaptive Immune Responses and Immunosuppression Induced by IBDV

The infection of chickens with infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) precipitates a profound and multifaceted subversion of the adaptive immune system, a phenomenon that is the cornerstone of the virus’s pathogenicity and its significant economic impact on global poultry production [1, 14, 23]. The adaptive immune response, characterized by the highly specific actions of T and B lymphocytes, constitutes the host’s ultimate defensive line against pathogens. IBDV, however, has evolved sophisticated strategies to dismantle this defense, primarily through the targeted destruction of the bursa of Fabricius (BF), the primary lymphoid organ for B lymphocyte maturation and differentiation in birds [1, 23]. The resultant immunosuppression is not a passive consequence of viral replication but an active, multi-layered process involving direct cytolysis, programmed cell death, disruption of humoral and cellular effector functions, and the emergence of antigenically distinct variants capable of evading pre-existing immunity [1, 9, 35].

### The Primary Injury: Obliteration of Humoral Immunity

The most devastating and direct impact of IBDV on adaptive immunity is its highly selective tropism for and destruction of actively dividing B lymphocytes within the bursa of Fabricius [1, 14, 23]. This tropism is largely dictated by the expression of specific host cell factors. The identification of chicken CD44 (chCD44) as a novel cellular receptor for the IBDV capsid protein VP2 has provided critical mechanistic insight into this tissue and cell-type specificity [32]. The interaction between VP2 and chCD44 facilitates virus binding and entry into susceptible B cells. Following entry, infection leads to rapid and extensive destruction of bursal follicles. The cytopathic effect is manifested through both direct viral lytic replication and the induction of apoptosis, with studies demonstrating that novel variant strains can induce apoptosis in over 55% of bursal cells [3, 18, 38]. Histopathological examination reveals severe lymphoid depletion, necrosis, follicular atrophy, and ultimately, bursal fibrosis [3, 18]. This wholesale destruction of the bursal microenvironment leads to a precipitous decline in B cell numbers and a consequent failure of humoral immunity. The capacity to produce immunoglobulins, IgM, IgA, and most critically, IgY (the avian functional equivalent of mammalian IgG), is severely compromised [18, 42]. Chickens infected with IBDV, particularly with very virulent (vv) or novel variant (nVar) strains, exhibit significantly reduced serum antibody titers not only to IBDV itself but also, and more importantly, to concurrently administered vaccines against other economically critical pathogens such as Newcastle disease virus (NDV) and fowl adenovirus [21, 37]. This vaccine failure is a hallmark of IBDV-induced immunosuppression and a primary driver of its economic cost, as flocks become susceptible to a wide array of secondary infections [1, 14, 38]. The severity of this humoral blockade is such that even in the presence of maternally derived antibodies or vaccine-induced immunity against classical strains, emerging nVarIBDV strains can still cause significant bursal damage and immunosuppression, a phenomenon known as immune circumvention [9, 35].

### Disruption of Cellular Immune Responses and Cytokine Networks

While B cells are the primary targets, the impact of IBDV on the cellular arm of the adaptive immune system is profound, albeit more indirect. T lymphocytes are not permissive to IBDV replication, yet their function and distribution are dramatically altered by the infection [1, 44]. The destruction of the bursal architecture and the resulting inflammatory milieu severely disrupt the normal interplay between B and T cells that is essential for robust antibody responses. In the spleen and other secondary lymphoid tissues, IBDV infection induces a complex and often paradoxical shift in T cell populations. Studies have documented an early influx of macrophages and T lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ and CD8+ cells, into the bursa and caecal tonsils following vvIBDV infection [44, 49]. This infiltration is a double-edged sword: while it represents an attempt by the host to contain the infection, the accompanying release of cytokines contributes to tissue pathology. Indeed, the virus manipulates the host's cytokine network to exacerbate immune dysregulation. Infection with vvIBDV triggers a powerful inflammatory response, characterized by the upregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1β (IL-1β), IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) [18, 42, 47]. This is often coupled with the induction of regulatory cytokines like IL-10, leading to an imbalance that favors immunosuppression [42]. A key mediator in this process appears to be chicken macrophage migration inhibitory factor (chMIF), which is uniquely upregulated by vvIBDV and drives the secretion of IL-1β and IL-18, promoting acute inflammation and macrophage recruitment [46].

The dysregulation extends to cytokine signaling pathways critical for antiviral defense. For instance, IBDV has been shown to disrupt the interferon (IFN) response. While the virus triggers an initial upregulation of type I IFNs, it also encodes mechanisms to antagonize downstream signaling, blunting the establishment of an antiviral state [45]. Furthermore, the virus can subvert cellular processes like autophagy and apoptosis to favor its own replication, with the VP5 protein playing a key role in non-lytic egress and delaying cell death to maximize viral progeny release [43, 45]. Recent work has also highlighted the role of microRNAs (miRNAs) in this battle. Host miRNAs, such as gga-miR-454, are differentially expressed in response to IBDV infection and can directly target the viral genome to suppress replication, while also modulating the host's immune response by targeting suppressors of cytokine signaling (SOCS) genes [33, 40]. Conversely, the virus utilizes host post-translational modifications for its own benefit. The phosphorylation of the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (VP1) by the host cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1)-cyclin B1 complex, and the arginine methylation of VP1 by protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5), are both essential for efficient viral genome replication, indirectly contributing to the overwhelming viral load that drives immunosuppression [29, 30].

### Immune Evasion by Emerging Variants and Reassortants

The evolutionary pressures exerted by widespread vaccination have driven the emergence of novel IBDV strains that possess an enhanced capacity to induce immunosuppression specifically by circumventing vaccine-induced adaptive immunity. The most alarming contemporary example is the nVarIBDV (genotype A2dB1), which has become predominant in China and other parts of Asia [6, 7, 12]. These strains cause subclinical disease with severe bursal atrophy and profound immunosuppression, even in flocks vaccinated with very virulent IBDV (vvIBDV) vaccines [9, 10, 41]. The molecular basis for this immune evasion lies in critical amino acid substitutions within the hypervariable region (HVR) of the VP2 capsid protein, which is the primary target for neutralizing antibodies [11]. Key antigenic drift at residues 318 (Gly to Asp) and 323 (Asp to Gln) has been definitively shown to alter the conformation of neutralizing epitopes, allowing the virus to evade recognition by antibodies generated against vvIBDV vaccines [35]. This antigenic mismatch is so significant that polyclonal antisera against vvIBDV have a 7.0 log2 reduction in neutralizing titer against nVarIBDV [35].

The segmented nature of the IBDV genome, comprised of segment A (encoding VP2, VP3, VP4, and VP5) and segment B (encoding VP1), facilitates a more dramatic form of immune evasion through reassortment. When a cell is co-infected with two different IBDV strains, segments can be swapped, generating novel progeny viruses with unique pathogenic and antigenic properties [2, 8]. Numerous reassortant strains have been documented globally. For example, the A3B1 reassortant (vvIBDV segment A with a classical/attenuated segment B) has spread widely in Europe, exhibiting a unique pathotype with subclinical infection but significant bursal damage [5, 15]. Conversely, the A2dB1b nVarIBDV with a variant segment B was first reported outside of Asia in Egypt, signaling a major epidemiological shift [4]. Even within a single genogroup, recombination between field and vaccine strains has been identified, generating viruses with increased pathogenicity, as seen with the IBD16HeN01 strain which is a recombinant between nVarIBDV and an intermediate vaccine strain [39]. The continuous emergence of these genetically diverse strains, as classified by the unified genotyping system (e.g., genogroups A1-A8, B1-B5), creates a moving target for adaptive immunity, as existing vaccines may offer incomplete protection against heterologous or reassortant challenges [2, 8, 19].

### Systemic Consequences of Immunosuppression on Immune Organ Morphology and Function

The systemic repercussions of the adaptive immune system's collapse extend far beyond the bursa. The profound B cell depletion and the disruption of T cell helper functions compromise the entire lymphoid architecture. The spleen, a secondary lymphoid organ crucial for systemic immunity, also undergoes pathological changes, including lymphoid depletion and altered germinal center formation [36, 49]. This systemic failure is reflected in the poor seroconversion observed after vaccination for other diseases, a classic indicator of IBDV-induced immunosuppression [21, 48]. The impact is not limited to the lymphoid organs; the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including the caecal tonsils, is also severely affected. vvIBDV infection leads to a significant reduction in B lymphocytes and an increase in T lymphocytes and macrophages within the caecal tonsils, coupled with a disruption of the normal gut microbiota composition [44]. This damage to the GALT likely compromises the integrity of the intestinal barrier and mucosal immunity, increasing the bird's susceptibility to enteric pathogens. This multi-organ immunosuppression, recognized as a major threat to food security by organizations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), undermines the health and productivity of the flock, leading to growth retardation, increased mortality from secondary infections (such as colibacillosis or aspergillosis), and a significant negative economic impact on producers [14, 21, 38]. The ability of nVarIBDV to reduce body weight by approximately 16% in broilers exemplifies the direct production losses incurred [21]. In summary, the adaptive immune response to IBDV is not merely compromised; it is systematically dismantled through a concerted attack on B lymphocyte development, a derangement of cellular immunity and cytokine signaling, and a remarkable capacity for antigenic evolution that continues to outpace current control strategies.

Epidemiology and Genotypic Diversity of IBDV Strains Worldwide

Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) represents one of the most economically consequential immunosuppressive pathogens affecting the global poultry industry, with its epidemiological landscape shaped by continuous genetic evolution, segment reassortment, and the emergence of novel genotypes that challenge existing control measures [14, 56]. The virus, a member of the family Birnaviridae with a bi-segmented double-stranded RNA genome, exhibits a remarkable propensity for genetic variation, which drives the dynamic and increasingly complex patterns of disease observed across diverse geographic regions [2, 19]. Understanding the global epidemiology and genotypic diversity of IBDV is not merely an academic exercise; it is a prerequisite for rational vaccine design, surveillance strategies, and the implementation of effective biosecurity protocols. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes IBD as a disease of significant economic importance, and its control is a priority for member nations, yet the virus continues to evolve, necessitating continuous molecular monitoring.

Historical Paradigms and the Classical Genotypic Framework

The initial classification of IBDV serotype 1 strains was phenomenological, relying on pathotypic and antigenic characteristics. Strains were broadly categorized as classical (or standard), antigenic variant, and very virulent (vv) [19, 23]. The classical virulent strains, such as the reference strain 52/70, were the first recognized and caused significant morbidity and mortality. In the 1980s, antigenic variant strains emerged in the United States, capable of breaking through immunity induced by classical vaccines [19, 23]. This was followed by the emergence of vvIBDV strains in Europe in the late 1980s, which spread globally with devastating impact, causing high mortality in susceptible flocks [11, 16]. This descriptive nomenclature, however, proved increasingly inadequate as molecular characterization revealed a far more nuanced genetic picture.

A major advancement in understanding the global diversity came with the proposal of a unified, phylogeny-based genotypic classification system. By analyzing the hypervariable region of the VP2 gene (segment A) and a conserved region of the VP1 gene (segment B), researchers initially identified seven major genogroups for segment A, designated A1 (classical), A2 (US antigenic variant), A3 (very virulent), A4 (distinct or dIBDV), A5 (atypical Mexican), A6 (atypical Italian), and A7 (early Australian), with a separate genogroup A0 for serotype 2 strains [2, 11]. Concurrently, segment B was categorized into five distinct genogroups: B1 (classical-like), B2 (very virulent-like), B3 (early Australian-like), B4 (Polish and Tanzanian), and B5 (Nigerian) [2]. This dual-segment approach, incorporating both VP2 and VP1, was crucial because it formally recognized the role of reassortment, the exchange of entire genome segments, as a major evolutionary force driving the emergence of phenotypically novel strains [2, 8]. The classification was further refined and expanded to include nine A genogroups (A1-A8 and A0) and five B genogroups, with A2 subdivided into lineages (e.g., A2a, A2b, A2c, A2d), a framework that provides the granularity necessary to track the emergence of contemporary variant strains [8, 12].

The Global Emergence of Novel Variant Strains and Reassortants

The most significant epidemiological shift of the past decade has been the widespread emergence of novel variant IBDV (nVarIBDV) strains. While antigenic variants were historically confined to North America, a new lineage of nVarIBDV, designated as genogroup A2dB1, was first detected in China around the mid-2010s and has since become a predominant epidemic strain in East Asia [6, 7, 12]. Molecular characterization revealed that these strains differ markedly from both the earlier US variants and co-circulating vvIBDV strains, possessing distinct amino acid substitutions in the VP2 hypervariable region that confer antigenic drift [6, 7, 35]. Crucially, these nVarIBDV strains have demonstrated the ability to cause severe bursal atrophy and profound immunosuppression in vaccinated flocks, effectively circumventing the immune protection provided by conventional vvIBDV vaccines [9, 53]. The mechanism of this immune circumvention has been partially elucidated; specific residue changes at positions 318 (G318D) and 323 (D323Q) in the VP2 capsid protein are directly involved in altering neutralizing antibody recognition, allowing the virus to evade vaccine-induced humoral immunity [35].

The epidemiological impact of these nVarIBDVs has been severe. In China, surveys from 2019-2020 revealed a co-circulation of multiple genotypes, with nVarIBDV (A2dB1) accounting for a staggering 52% of positive samples, surpassing the once-dominant vvIBDV (A3B3) which comprised 30% [12]. Similar studies across southern China corroborated this trend, with nVarIBDV isolates representing a significant proportion of field strains [10]. The spread of this genotype has not been confined to Asia. Alarming reports have now documented the first detection of A2dB1 in Egypt, outside of its endemic Eastern and Southern Asian range, indicating a major expansion of this emerging lineage into the Middle East and Africa with potentially severe consequences for disease control [4].

Reassortment as a Principal Driver of Genotypic Diversity

The bipartite genome of IBDV makes it uniquely susceptible to reassortment, a process that has fueled the genesis of numerous novel genotypes with altered pathogenic and antigenic profiles [15, 16, 25]. Reassortant viruses can acquire the high virulence determinants of segment A from vvIBDV while inheriting a segment B from an attenuated or classical-like strain, resulting in a mosaic genome with unpredictable phenotypic outcomes. The most prominent example of this is the A3B1 reassortant, which carries a vvIBDV-like segment A and a classical-like segment B from an attenuated vaccine strain such as D78 [5, 15, 16]. These A3B1 strains have been responsible for widespread, often subclinical, outbreaks across North-Western Europe, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom [15]. Field observations indicated subclinical disease with marked bursal atrophy, but experimental infections in SPF chickens confirmed this genotype could cause significant mortality (up to 80%) when tested under standard conditions, highlighting the complex interplay between genetics and host/environmental factors in determining virulence [25].

The epidemiological situation in Poland serves as a microcosm of this dynamic evolution. A comprehensive survey from 2016-2022 documented the circulation of classic vvIBDV (A3B2), old reassortants (A3B4), and the emergence of new A3B1 reassortants, illustrating a rapidly shifting landscape where multiple genogroups compete and co-circulate [5]. Similarly, in Algeria, highly pathogenic reassortant viruses with segment A related to European vvIBDV and segment B from an unidentified source have been detected, underscoring the global nature of this phenomenon [55]. In Asia, further complexity is added by reassortment events between nVarIBDV and local vvIBDV strains. For instance, the A2dB3 genotype, which combines the antigenic variant segment A with a vvIBDV-like segment B (prevalent in China as the HLJ0504-like lineage), has been identified, demonstrating that the novel variant is not static but actively participates in segment swapping [13]. Even more complex, natural recombinants, such as strain GXB02 in China, have been identified where homologous recombination occurs within segment A itself, incorporating genetic material from both an intermediate vaccine strain and a very virulent strain, further blurring the lines between vaccine and field virus evolution [39, 52].

Geographic and Temporal Patterns of Genogroup Distribution

A global synthesis of IBDV epidemiology reveals distinct, though overlapping, geographic distributions of major genogroups. Classical strains (A1B1) persist in some regions but are largely replaced by more fit genotypes. Very virulent strains (A3B2 and A3B3) have a near-global distribution, having been reported across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East [5, 16, 27, 54, 57]. However, the specific lineage of vvIBDV can vary by region; for example, Turkish vvIBDV strains cluster into distinct groups, some sharing ancestry with strains from Iraq and Kuwait, while others form a unique Turkish-only clade [54]. The "distinct" or dIBDV lineage (genogroup A4) represents a globally dispersed group with conserved genetic characteristics, shown to cause subclinical disease with severe immunosuppression in South America and Europe, yet its antigenic profile is notably divergent from classic, variant, and vv strains [24, 51]. The detection of a new genogroup in Portugal, with a unique segment A and a classical-like segment B, further emphasizes that our knowledge of global diversity is incomplete [51].

The most dramatic temporal shift is the rise of the nVarIBDV (A2dB1) in East Asia since 2017. Initially overlooked for decades after the first variant descriptions in the US, these novel variants re-emerged and rapidly became dominant in China, Japan, and South Korea [6, 7, 12, 38, 50]. Their ability to cause chronic bursal atrophy in the face of existing vaccination has led to significant economic losses, not only from direct production losses but also from the suppression of immune responses to other vaccines, such as those against Newcastle disease virus, leading to vaccination failures in the field [21]. The presence of this genotype has now been confirmed in South Korea, where co-infections with vvIBDV strains have been identified, setting the stage for further reassortment events [50]. The recent expansion of this lineage into Egypt signals a potential shift in the global epicenter of IBDV evolution [4]. In Africa, a distinct pattern has emerged, with Nigerian reassortant strains exhibiting novel triplet amino acid motifs in the VP2 hypervariable region, suggesting that unique evolutionary pressures are acting on the virus in different ecological niches [27].

The genotypic diversity of IBDV is a direct consequence of its error-prone RNA polymerase, the selective pressure from widespread vaccination, and the inherent plasticity of its segmented genome. The emergence of nVarIBDV, the continuous circulation of reassortants like A3B1 and A2dB3, and the detection of novel lineages in Europe and Africa collectively paint a picture of an increasingly complex and globally connected viral ecosystem. Continuous, systematic surveillance coupled with full-genome sequencing is no longer optional but essential for tracking these evolutionary trajectories and for the timely development of effective, genotype-matched vaccines to safeguard the global poultry supply.

Diagnostic Methods for IBDV: from Classical to Molecular Approaches

The accurate and timely diagnosis of infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is paramount for the effective management and control of this economically devastating pathogen in poultry. The clinical presentation of IBDV infection, ranging from acute, high-mortality disease caused by very virulent strains to subclinical immunosuppression induced by emerging variant strains, presents a significant diagnostic challenge [1, 3, 6]. A diagnosis based solely on clinical signs and gross pathology is often insufficient, particularly for subclinical infections where the only observable lesion may be bursal atrophy, a condition also induced by other immunosuppressive agents [1, 3, 9, 38]. Consequently, the diagnostic approach for IBDV has evolved from classical virological and serological methods to a sophisticated array of molecular techniques. This evolution is driven by the need for high sensitivity, specificity, the ability to differentiate pathotypes and genotypes, and the capacity to detect co-infections and reassortant viruses, which are now recognized as key drivers of IBDV epidemiology [2, 4, 5, 15, 52]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes IBD as a notifiable disease, underscoring the critical role of robust diagnostic systems in global surveillance and trade.

Classical Diagnostic Methods

Histopathology and Gross Pathology: The cornerstone of classical IBDV diagnosis lies in the post-mortem examination of the bursa of Fabricius. Pathognomonic gross lesions include an enlarged, edematous, and sometimes hemorrhagic bursa in the acute phase of infection with virulent strains, followed by marked atrophy and a gelatinous or yellowish discoloration [1, 3, 18]. Histopathological examination of bursal tissue reveals the hallmark feature of IBDV infection: severe, progressive lymphoid depletion in the follicles [3, 18]. This is characterized by necrosis, apoptosis, and depletion of B lymphocytes, often accompanied by infiltration of heterophils and macrophages, and interfollicular connective tissue hyperplasia [3, 18, 36, 38]. In chronic or subclinical infections, especially those caused by novel variant strains (e.g., genotype A2dB1b), bursal atrophy may be the only gross and microscopic finding, with the degree of atrophy directly correlating with the level of immunosuppression [3, 24, 38, 41]. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end-labeling (TUNEL) assays can further confirm the presence of apoptosis, a key mechanism of bursal cell destruction, in infected tissues [3, 38]. While highly specific for IBDV-induced bursal damage, histopathology cannot differentiate between pathotypes or genotypes and is a relatively insensitive tool for detecting early or mild infections.

Virus Isolation: The classical "gold standard" for IBDV detection is virus isolation. The virus can be propagated in embryonated specific-pathogen-free (SPF) chicken eggs, typically inoculated via the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM), or in primary cell cultures such as chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEFs) or chicken embryo bursal cells [3, 62, 63]. Virus isolation is crucial for obtaining viral stocks for further antigenic and genetic characterization, including pathotyping and antigenic profiling. However, this method is time-consuming (often taking 3-7 days), requires specialized facilities and live egg or cell culture systems, and can be hampered by the poor adaptation of certain field strains, particularly novel variants, to in vitro growth [3]. Furthermore, it provides no immediate information for rapid outbreak response and is less sensitive than modern molecular methods, especially for detecting low viral loads.

Serological Methods: Serological assays are widely used for monitoring flock immunity and for retrospective diagnosis of infection. The most commonly employed methods include the agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) [14]. AGID is a simple, low-cost test that detects the presence of precipitating antibodies against IBDV, indicating prior exposure or vaccination. However, it is qualitative and cannot differentiate between antibodies induced by serotype 1 (pathogenic) and serotype 2 (non-pathogenic) viruses, nor can it distinguish responses to different serotype 1 pathotypes [14]. Commercial ELISAs provide quantitative data on antibody titers and are highly suitable for large-scale flock profiling, allowing for the assessment of maternal antibody decay and the timing of vaccination [14, 59, 60]. A critical limitation of classical serology is its inability to differentiate between infection and vaccination, and crucially, it cannot distinguish between antibodies generated in response to very virulent, classical, or novel variant strains. Virus neutralization (VN) tests, while more specific and capable of differentiating antigenic subtypes, are cumbersome, time-consuming, and labour-intensive, making them unsuitable for routine diagnostics [9, 35]. The recent emergence of novel variant IBDVs that can partially circumvent vaccine-induced immunity highlights the need for more sophisticated tools to assess the protective efficacy of the humoral immune response [9, 35].

Molecular Diagnostic Methods: The Current Standard

The advent of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and its derivatives has revolutionized IBDV diagnostics, offering unparalleled speed, sensitivity, and specificity. Molecular methods have become indispensable for confirming infection, differentiating pathotypes, genotyping, and studying viral evolution and epidemiology.

Reverse Transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and Quantitative Real-Time RT-PCR (RT-qPCR): RT-PCR is the most widely used molecular tool for IBDV detection, targeting conserved regions of the viral genome, most commonly the VP2 gene [3, 7, 10, 54, 57]. The ability to amplify viral RNA from a variety of clinical samples, including bursal tissue, spleen, and even cloacal swabs, makes it a versatile frontline diagnostic tool [7, 50, 54]. RT-qPCR further enhances this by providing quantitative data on viral load, which is valuable for correlating with disease severity and for monitoring the dynamics of viral replication [33, 42]. This technique is significantly more sensitive than conventional RT-PCR and allows for high-throughput screening. Furthermore, multiplex RT-PCR assays have been developed to simultaneously detect and differentiate IBDV from other immunosuppressive pathogens, such as chicken infectious anemia virus and fowl adenovirus, which are frequently involved in co-infections that can exacerbate disease [15, 37, 44]. This is critical given that IBDV-induced immunosuppression often predisposes birds to secondary infections, and the clinical picture can be dominated by the secondary pathogen.

Nucleic Acid Sequencing and Phylogenetic Analysis: While RT-PCR/RT-qPCR confirms the presence of IBDV, the definitive characterization of the strain, its genotype, pathotype, and origin, requires nucleic acid sequencing. The hypervariable region of the VP2 gene (hvVP2) is the primary target for sequence analysis because it encodes the major neutralizing epitope and contains key amino acid residues associated with antigenicity and virulence [2, 7, 8, 11]. This region has been the basis for classifying IBDV into distinct genogroups, a system that has replaced the older, confusing descriptive nomenclature of classical, variant, and very virulent [2, 8, 11]. For instance, sequencing of this region allows for the distinction of novel variant strains (e.g., A2d) from classical (A1) and very virulent (A3) strains [3, 4, 8].

Critically, because IBDV has a bi-segmented genome, a comprehensive genotypic classification must incorporate sequence data from both genome segments. Segment A (encoding VP2, VP3, VP4, and VP5) and segment B (encoding VP1, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase) can reassort independently during co-infection [2, 4, 5, 8]. This reassortment is a major driver of IBDV evolution, creating novel strains with mixed genetic backgrounds (e.g., a vvIBDV-like segment A combined with a vaccine-like or classical segment B) [2, 5, 13, 15, 25]. The genotyping system proposed by Wang et al. [8] and refined by Islam et al. [2] designates genogroups for both segments (e.g., A2dB1b, A3B2, A3B1), providing a robust and informative nomenclature for understanding the true genetic makeup of circulating viruses. This approach has been critical in identifying emerging reassortants, such as the very virulent–reassortant strains spreading across Europe (e.g., A3B1) and the circulating novel variants in Asia and Egypt (A2dB1b), which present new challenges for vaccine efficacy [2, 4, 5, 13, 55]. Phylogenetic analysis of full-length or partial sequences from both segments enables the tracking of viral origins, spread, and evolutionary trajectories, which is essential for global epidemiological surveillance [2, 6, 16]. This method is the cornerstone of the WOAH-recommended molecular characterization of IBDV.

Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP): Before the widespread adoption of sequencing, RFLP analysis of RT-PCR products was a common method for differentiating classic, variant, and very virulent IBDV strains based on the presence of specific restriction enzyme cut sites. While a useful and cost-effective tool for pathotyping in its time, RFLP has been largely superseded by sequencing, which provides a far more precise and comprehensive molecular characterization.

Novel and Emerging Diagnostic Platforms

The demand for rapid, field-deployable, and highly sensitive point-of-care (POC) diagnostics is driving innovation. Several novel platforms are being developed to meet this need.

Recombinase Polymerase Amplification (RPA) Combined with CRISPR-Cas: RPA is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification technique that, like PCR, can exponentially amplify target DNA or RNA, but at a constant low temperature (37-42°C), eliminating the need for a thermocycler. When coupled with CRISPR-Cas systems, such as Cas12a, it creates a powerful and simple detection method. The RPA-Cas12aDS platform, for example, allows for the visual, naked-eye detection of IBDV RNA within approximately 50 minutes [58]. The detection results can be observed under blue or UV light, making it ideal for use in well-equipped labs as well as in field conditions with limited resources [58]. This method holds immense promise for rapid outbreak confirmation and surveillance, especially in the context of emerging variant strains where rapid diagnosis is crucial for implementing control measures.

Nanobiosensors: Other cutting-edge approaches involve the use of nanobiosensors for highly sensitive detection of viral nucleic acids or proteins. For instance, a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based system using quantum dots (QDs) and gold nanoparticles immobilized with rhodamine (AuNPs-Rh) has been developed to detect the VP2 gene of IBDV [61]. In this system, the presence of a specific target sequence brings the QD donor and the AuNP-Rh acceptor into close proximity, triggering FRET. This technique offers the potential for extremely sensitive detection of a specific viral target without the need for nucleic acid amplification, though its application remains primarily in the research domain [61]. These platforms, while not yet mainstream in veterinary diagnostics, herald a future where IBDV detection could be instantaneous, highly specific, and performed directly on the farm, a critical advantage given the rapid evolution and spread of novel strains in a globally integrated poultry industry [4, 6, 9].

Vaccination and Control Strategies against Infectious Bursal Disease

The control of Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD) represents one of the most persistent and complex challenges in modern poultry virology. Despite over six decades of vaccine development and deployment, the virus continues to evolve, circumvent established immunity, and cause substantial economic losses globally [1, 14]. The central conundrum in IBDV management is the delicate and often paradoxical balance between inducing protective immunity and avoiding the very immunosuppression that the virus itself causes. The principal target of IBDV is the bursa of Fabricius, the primary lymphoid organ for B-cell maturation in chickens. Infection, even with attenuated live vaccines, can cause varying degrees of bursal damage [22, 23]. This section provides a comprehensive analysis of the current vaccination strategies, the immunological and evolutionary pressures that drive vaccine failure, and the emerging biotechnological and management-based control strategies that are being developed to counter the relentless evolution of IBDV.

The Immunopathological Foundation of Vaccination Challenges

To appreciate the intricacies of IBDV control, one must first understand the unique immunopathological niche the virus occupies. IBDV is an immunosuppressive pathogen that specifically targets and destroys actively dividing B lymphocytes within the bursa of Fabricius [1, 18]. This destruction is not merely a consequence of infection but is the primary mechanism of disease and a major obstacle to vaccination. A healthy, functional bursa is essential for a robust humoral immune response. Consequently, any vaccine, particularly live attenuated ones, that replicates within the bursa carries an inherent risk of inducing immunosuppression, especially if administered at a suboptimal age or dose [14, 67].

The host's adaptive immune response is the primary line of defense, but IBDV has evolved sophisticated mechanisms to subvert it. The virus inflicts severe damage on immune organs and profoundly affects both humoral and cellular immune responses [1]. The humoral response, mediated by neutralizing antibodies against the VP2 capsid protein, is critical for protection. However, the virus's ability to destroy the B-cell precursors responsible for producing these antibodies creates a dangerous feedback loop, particularly in very young chicks with immature immune systems or in flocks where maternally derived antibodies (MDA) interfere with vaccine take [14, 22].

The Evolutionary Arms Race: Antigenic Drift, Reassortment, and Vaccine Escape

The most significant driver of vaccine failure is the extraordinary genetic and antigenic plasticity of IBDV. The virus, with its bi-segmented double-stranded RNA genome, is highly prone to both point mutations (antigenic drift) and genomic reassortment, leading to the emergence of novel strains that can partially or completely evade vaccine-induced immunity [2, 6, 56]. The traditional classification into classic, variant, and very virulent (vv) pathotypes has been superseded by a more precise genogrouping system based on both genome segments, which reveals a far more complex epidemiological landscape [8, 11, 19].

The "very virulent" IBDV (vvIBDV) strains, belonging to genogroup A3B2 or related reassortants, emerged in the late 1980s and still pose a significant threat, causing high mortality and severe bursal atrophy [5, 6, 57]. However, the most pressing challenge in recent years has been the emergence of novel variant IBDV (nVarIBDV) strains, particularly the A2dB1b genotype [4, 6, 7]. These strains, first reported in China in the mid-2010s and now spreading to other continents including Europe and Africa, are characterized by a unique ability to cause severe bursal atrophy and immunosuppression in vaccinated flocks while often producing subclinical infections [3, 4, 9, 38]. This creates a silent economic drain on production.

The mechanism of this immune circumvention is rooted in specific amino acid substitutions in the hypervariable region of the VP2 capsid protein, the primary target for neutralizing antibodies [35]. Critical mutations, such as G318D and D323Q, have been shown to significantly alter the antigenic profile of the virus, reducing its recognition by antibodies raised against classical or vvIBDV vaccines [35]. This antigenic mismatch means that commercial vaccines, which are often based on older classical or vvIBDV strains, induce antibodies that are poorly neutralizing against these emerging variants [9, 35]. The problem is compounded by genome segment reassortment. The A2dB1b genotype, for example, is itself a reassortant combining a variant-like segment A with a specific segment B, and further reassortment events with vvIBDV strains are creating new, unpredictable pathotypes (e.g., A2dB3) [2, 5, 13]. These newly emerged strains demonstrate that the genetic backbone of the virus is in constant flux, rendering static vaccine formulations obsolete.

Conventional Vaccination Strategies and Their Limitations

Current control strategies rely heavily on a tiered system of live attenuated, inactivated (killed), and, to a lesser extent, immune-complex vaccines, each with specific applications and intrinsic weaknesses. Live attenuated vaccines, ranging from "mild" to "intermediate" to "intermediate-plus" (or "hot"), are the most widely used [14, 22]. Their primary advantage is that they can be administered via drinking water or spray, allowing for mass application. The choice of vaccine virulence is a calculated risk. Mild vaccines are safe but may be overwhelmed by high levels of MDA or highly virulent field strains. Hot vaccines are more immunogenic but pose a significant risk of inducing bursal atrophy and immunosuppression, especially in flocks with suboptimal management or concurrent infections [67]. This vaccine-induced immunosuppression can leave birds vulnerable to secondary infections, such as colibacillosis or gangrenous dermatitis, and can interfere with the efficacy of other vaccines, such as those for Newcastle disease [21, 67].

Inactivated oil-emulsion vaccines are used primarily in breeder flocks to induce high, uniform levels of MDA that protect progeny during the first few weeks of life [14]. While safe, they require individual bird handling, are more expensive to administer, and induce a weaker cell-mediated immune response compared to live vaccines. The major challenge with MDA is the "window of susceptibility." If MDA levels are too high, they neutralize live vaccine viruses, preventing the development of active immunity. If they wane too early, chicks are vulnerable to field virus infection. This timing is difficult to manage, especially in the face of varying field challenge pressures [14].

Advanced Vaccine Platforms: Precision, Safety, and Breadth of Protection

To overcome the limitations of traditional vaccines, a new generation of rationally designed vaccines is being developed, driven by reverse genetics and immunoinformatics. These platforms aim to provide broader, safer, and more durable protection by targeting the specific antigenic profile of emerging strains.

Reverse Genetics for Live-Attenuated Vaccines: Reverse genetics systems allow for the precise manipulation of the IBDV genome [22]. This technology has been used to create precisely attenuated vaccine candidates. A landmark example is the development of a reassortment vaccine candidate, rGtVarVP2, which was constructed by replacing the VP2 gene of an attenuated vaccine backbone (strain Gt) with that of a novel variant IBDV [66]. This virus is non-pathogenic, replicates well in cell culture, and provides complete protection against the homologous nVarIBDV challenge without causing bursal atrophy [66]. This approach elegantly addresses the need for a safe, live vaccine that is antigenically matched to the target field strain.

Virus-Like Particle (VLP) and Subunit Vaccines: Recombinant VP2 proteins, when expressed in systems like Escherichia coli, can self-assemble into non-infectious VLPs that are highly immunogenic [53, 65]. These VLP vaccines have significant safety advantages as they contain no viral genetic material and cannot revert to virulence. Studies have demonstrated that a VLP vaccine based on the VP2 of an nVarIBDV strain (SHG19) can induce high titers of neutralizing antibodies and provide 100% protection against homologous challenge [65]. Crucially, this VLP vaccine also provided good protection against a lethal challenge with heterologous vvIBDV, despite inducing lower neutralizing titers [65]. This suggests that VLPs can stimulate a broader, potentially cross-protective immune response. Another promising subunit approach involved the expression of a soluble rVP2 that also formed VLPs, which provided complete protection in SPF and commercial broilers [53].

Vectored and Multivalent Vaccines: Using other avirulent viruses as vectors to deliver IBDV antigens offers a path to integrate IBDV control with vaccination against other major diseases. Recombinant Newcastle disease virus (rNDV) expressing the VP2 of vvIBDV has shown great promise. This bivalent vaccine induced both humoral and cell-mediated immunity against both NDV and vvIBDV, providing complete protection against lethal vvIBDV challenge and 80% protection against virulent NDV challenge [48]. Similarly, recombinant Marek's disease virus (rMDV) expressing VP2 offers a dual vaccine platform, providing full protection against both very virulent MDV and vvIBDV challenges [69]. This vectored approach simplifies vaccination schedules and reduces handling stress.

Immunoinformatics and Multiepitope Vaccines: A cutting-edge, entirely in silico approach uses immunoinformatics to design multiepitope vaccines [64]. By analyzing the major (VP2) and minor (VP3) capsid proteins, researchers have computationally engineered a vaccine construct containing multiple CD8+, CD4+, and B-cell epitopes linked to a cholera toxin B adjuvant. This candidate was predicted to be stable, antigenic, and immunogenic, with a strong predicted binding affinity to chicken Toll-like receptor-3 [64]. While still needing empirical validation, this approach represents a paradigm shift toward the rational, epitope-level design of vaccines.

Non-Vaccine Control Strategies: Biosecurity, Immunomodulation, and Antiviral Agents

While vaccination is the cornerstone of control, a successful strategy must be integrated with robust biosecurity and, in the future, potentially novel therapeutics.

Biosecurity and Detection: IBDV is an exceptionally hardy virus, resistant to many common disinfectants and able to persist in the environment for weeks [14, 17]. Strict biosecurity protocols, including thorough cleaning and disinfection of poultry houses between flocks, proper disposal of manure and litter, and control of fomites and personnel movement, are non-negotiable [14]. The rapid and accurate detection of the virus is critical. Novel diagnostic platforms, such as the RPA-Cas12aDS method, which combines recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) with CRISPR-Cas12a, allow for a visual, rapid (under 50 minutes), and point-of-care detection of IBDV, facilitating early intervention and containment [58]. This technology is particularly valuable for differentiating between vaccine and field strains and detecting emerging variants in real-time.

Immunomodulation and Herbal Adjuvants: One strategy to mitigate the immunosuppressive effects of live vaccines is the use of immunomodulators. Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, such as Poly I:C (TLR3 agonist), have been shown to alleviate hot vaccine-induced immunosuppression. In one study, co-administration of Poly I:C with a hot IBDV vaccine reduced bursal lesion scores, restored T-cell and macrophage function, and increased overall antibody responses to other vaccines [67]. This approach could allow for the use of more immunogenic live vaccines while reducing their damaging side effects. Additionally, herbal extracts from plants like Tinospora cordifolia and Withania somnifera have demonstrated immunostimulatory potential. These extracts can enhance antibody titers, cytokine production (IFN-γ, IL-2), and survival rates following IBDV challenge, offering a natural and cost-effective adjunct to vaccination [59, 60]. A mixed herbal extract has even been shown to overcome the immunosuppressive effects of an IBDV and H9N2 avian influenza virus co-infection in vaccinated birds [59].

Host-Targeted Antiviral Compounds: A deeper understanding of the molecular biology of IBDV replication has revealed potential targets for antiviral drugs. Research into post-translational modifications of the viral polymerase VP1 has identified specific host kinases and methyltransferases that are critical for viral replication. For instance, the CDK1-cyclin B1 complex phosphorylates VP1 at serine 7, and its inhibition by the small molecule RO3306 severely disrupts viral replication [30]. Similarly, the arginine methyltransferase PRMT5 is hijacked by the virus to methylate VP1, a modification essential for its polymerase activity; inhibition of PRMT5 also dramatically reduces viral yields [29]. While still in the research phase, these host-directed therapies represent a novel antiviral strategy. A different but related strategy targets the virus itself; for example, nitric oxide (NO) induced by extracts from Withania somnifera has been shown to inhibit IBDV replication in vitro [68]. The development of such broad-spectrum, non-toxic antivirals and their delivery via feed or water could revolutionize outbreak management, particularly for the control of emerging, highly virulent, or vaccine-resistant strains.

Antiviral Targets and Future Perspectives for IBDV Management

Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) represents a persistent and economically devastating pathogen for the global poultry industry, causing acute immunosuppression primarily through the destruction of B lymphocytes in the bursa of Fabricius [1, 23]. The challenges inherent in controlling this virus are compounded by its bi-segmented double-stranded RNA genome, which facilitates rapid genetic evolution through both mutation and reassortment, leading to the continuous emergence of novel variant and reassortant strains that can evade existing vaccine-induced immunity [2, 5, 6, 8]. The recent global shifts in IBDV epidemiology, including the emergence of novel variant strains (genotype A2dB1) in Asia and their subsequent detection in Europe and Africa, alongside the circulation of highly pathogenic reassortants such as A3B1 in Europe, underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift in management strategies [4-6, 15]. While vaccination remains the cornerstone of prophylaxis, the evolving landscape of IBDV genetic diversity demands the identification and validation of novel antiviral targets that can be exploited for both therapeutic intervention and the rational design of next-generation vaccines. This section provides a comprehensive analysis of the molecular vulnerabilities of IBDV and discusses the future perspectives for translating these insights into effective control measures.

Molecular Targets Within the Viral Replication Machinery

The RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), encoded by segment B as the VP1 protein, is the central enzymatic engine of IBDV replication and represents a high-priority target for antiviral development. Recent investigations have illuminated the critical role of post-translational modifications in regulating VP1 polymerase activity, revealing druggable nodes in the virus-host interface. Specifically, the cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1)-cyclin B1 complex, a master regulator of the cell cycle, has been demonstrated to phosphorylate VP1 at serine residue 7 (S7), a modification essential for optimal polymerase function and viral replication [30]. The CDK1 inhibitor RO3306 severely disrupts VP1 polymerase activity and diminishes viral yields, providing proof-of-concept that targeting host kinases exploited by the virus could yield effective antiviral agents [30]. This dependency is not merely incidental; IBDV infection actively drives the cytoplasmic accumulation of CDK1-cyclin B1, ensuring its colocalization with VP1 and the phosphorylation necessary for genome replication [30]. Similarly, the host protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) has been identified as a critical facilitator of IBDV replication through the methylation of VP1 at arginine 426 (R426) [29]. The knockdown or pharmacological inhibition of PRMT5 substantially impairs viral replication, while mutation of the target arginine to alanine abrogates polymerase activity [29]. These findings establish VP1 methylation as another exploitable vulnerability. The dual requirement for both phosphorylation and methylation of VP1 underscores the sophisticated interplay between IBDV and the host cell machinery and suggests that combinatorial targeting of CDK1 and PRMT5 pathways could produce synergistic antiviral effects. The development of small-molecule inhibitors against these host enzymes, ideally with favorable pharmacokinetic profiles for oral administration in poultry feed or water, represents a tangible future direction.

Beyond the polymerase itself, the architecture of the viral replication complex offers additional targets. The structural protein VP3 serves as a multifunctional scaffold, orchestrating the assembly of ribonucleoprotein complexes and anchoring the replication machinery to host endosomal membranes [20, 34]. A groundbreaking study demonstrated that VP3 specifically binds to phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate [PtdIns(3)P] on the cytosolic leaflet of early endosomes, a lipid-protein interaction that is indispensable for the establishment of functional replication complexes [20]. The identification of PtdIns(3)P as a key host factor for a dsRNA virus is particularly notable, as it reveals a mechanistic similarity to positive-strand RNA viruses and suggests that inhibitors of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) or agents that sequester PtdIns(3)P could disrupt the spatial organization of viral replication [20]. Furthermore, VP3 is targeted for degradation by the host ubiquitin ligase TRIM25 through K27-linked polyubiquitination at lysine 854, a restriction mechanism that IBDV must counteract [31]. Enhancing this endogenous antiviral pathway, for instance through the use of compounds that upregulate TRIM25 expression or mimic its activity, could tip the balance in favor of the host.

Host Factors as Antiviral Targets: Receptors and Entry Pathways

The initial step of viral infection, binding and entry into the target B lymphocyte, is mediated by the major capsid protein VP2. The recent identification of chicken CD44 (chCD44) as a functional cellular receptor for IBDV provides a specific and tractable target for intervention [32]. Mass spectrometry screening of bursal lymphocyte proteins interacting with VP2, followed by rigorous validation, confirmed that chCD44 facilitates both virus binding and internalization [32]. Soluble chCD44 and specific anti-chCD44 antibodies effectively block viral entry, while overexpression of chCD44 confers binding capability to non-permissive cells [32]. This discovery opens the door to several antiviral strategies: (i) the development of receptor-mimicking peptides or soluble decoys that competitively inhibit VP2 binding; (ii) the design of monoclonal antibodies targeting the VP2 receptor-binding domain; and (iii) the potential for genetic selection of chickens with altered chCD44 expression or structure that confers resistance to infection. The fact that chCD44 is a transmembrane glycoprotein involved in cell adhesion and migration also raises the possibility that its expression levels or splicing variants could be modulated to limit IBDV susceptibility.

Additionally, the non-structural protein VP5 has been shown to be essential for the non-lytic egress of progeny virions, a process that enhances the speed and efficiency of viral dissemination within the host [43]. VP5-negative recombinant viruses exhibit significantly reduced egress, with viral release becoming dependent on the slower, lytic destruction of the cell [43]. The VP5 protein and the vesicular trafficking pathway it hijacks represent a comparatively underexplored but promising target for antiviral drugs. Inhibitors of the specific cellular components involved in VP5-mediated egress could trap viral progeny within infected cells, curtailing the spread of infection and giving the host immune system a window to clear the pathogen.

The Challenge of Genetic and Antigenic Diversity for Future Vaccines

Any discussion of future perspectives for IBDV management must confront the profound challenge posed by the virus's genetic plasticity. The unified genotypic classification system, which categorizes segment A into eight genogroups (A0–A8) and segment B into five (B1–B5), reveals the staggering potential for diversity through reassortment, with 45 possible genome segment combinations and at least 15 distinct genotypes already documented in the field [2, 8]. The emergence of novel variant IBDV (nVarIBDV, A2dB1) in China since the mid-2010s and its subsequent spread to Egypt and the potential for further global dissemination exemplify the failure of existing vaccines to keep pace with viral evolution [3, 4, 6, 7]. These nVarIBDV strains can cause severe bursal atrophy and immunosuppression even in the presence of antibodies induced by very virulent IBDV (vvIBDV) vaccines, primarily due to key amino acid substitutions at positions 318 and 323 of the VP2 hypervariable region, which facilitate immune circumvention [9, 35]. The antigenic mismatch between circulating nVarIBDV and commercial vaccines based on vvIBDV or classic strains has created a critical gap in protection [9, 53].

In response, future vaccine development must shift from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more agile, modular strategy. Virus-like particle (VLP) vaccines based on the recombinant VP2 of nVarIBDV have shown exceptional promise in animal trials, eliciting neutralizing antibodies that provide 100% protection against homologous challenge and good cross-protection against vvIBDV [53, 65]. The versatility of the bacterial expression system used for VLP production allows for the rapid exchange of VP2 sequences to match emerging antigenic variants. Similarly, reverse genetics systems have enabled the construction of reassortant vaccine candidates, such as the rGtVarVP2 strain, which carries the VP2 gene of a nVarIBDV in the backbone of an attenuated vaccine strain, offering a safe and effective platform that could be updated as the epidemiological situation dictates [66]. The development of multiepitope vaccines using immunoinformatics, which incorporate computationally predicted CD8+, CD4+, and B-cell epitopes from both VP2 and VP3, represents another cutting-edge avenue designed to elicit broad and robust immunity while avoiding the safety concerns of live vaccines [64]. The use of recombinant viral vectors, such as Newcastle disease virus (NDV) or Marek’s disease virus (MDV), to deliver the VP2 antigen offers the dual advantage of conferring protection against two major poultry pathogens simultaneously, enhancing vaccine uptake and cost-effectiveness [48, 69]. As the WOAH and FAO emphasize the global economic impact of transboundary animal diseases, the development of DIVA (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) compatible vaccines will also be essential for effective surveillance and control programs.

Immunomodulation and Host-Directed Therapy

An alternative and complementary strategy to direct-acting antivirals and vaccines is the modulation of the host immune response to enhance resistance to IBDV or mitigate the immunopathology associated with infection. The immunosuppression induced by IBDV is a primary driver of its economic impact, leaving birds vulnerable to secondary infections and blunting the efficacy of other vaccines [1, 44]. Innate immune agonists, particularly those targeting Toll-like receptors (TLRs), have demonstrated considerable potential. The combination of Pam3CSK4 (a TLR2 agonist) and poly I:C (a TLR3 agonist) synergistically upregulates interferon-β, interferon-γ, and other protective cytokines while suppressing inflammatory mediators such as IL-1β and IL-10, effectively alleviating the immunosuppression caused by "hot" live IBDV vaccines [67]. This approach could be translated into an adjunct therapy administered during outbreaks to bolster innate defenses. Furthermore, the CpG ODN (a TLR21 agonist in chickens), when combined with Tinospora cordifolia extract, has shown significant immunoprophylactic potential against vvIBDV, increasing the expression of IFN-γ, IL-2, and IL-4, and reducing mortality [60]. The paradoxical role of nitric oxide (NO) in IBDV pathogenesis is also being explored; while NO can inhibit viral replication, the Withania somnifera root extract appears to mediate part of its anti-IBDV activity through NO induction [68]. This suggests that controlled modulation of NO levels could be therapeutically beneficial. The future management of IBDV will likely involve integrated strategies that combine targeted vaccination with immunostimulant feed additives or water supplements to maintain robust immune competence, especially during high-risk periods.

Emerging Technologies: CRISPR-Based Diagnostics and Next-Generation Antivirals

The rapid and accurate detection of IBDV is a prerequisite for effective management, and the development of point-of-care diagnostics is transforming the landscape. The RPA-Cas12aDS platform, which combines recombinase polymerase amplification with CRISPR-Cas12a detection, allows for the visual, naked-eye identification of IBDV in bursal tissue samples within 50 minutes, without the need for sophisticated laboratory equipment [58]. This technology has immense potential for on-farm surveillance, enabling rapid differentiation between vaccine strains and field viruses, and facilitating early intervention. Additionally, the exploration of natural compounds for direct antiviral activity, such as the alkaloids from Cucumis metuliferus [63] or the mixed herbal extracts containing Ocimum sanctum and Withania somnifera [59], provides a reservoir of potential leads for cost-effective antiviral therapies suitable for use in extensive poultry production systems. The continued application of high-throughput screening and structural biology to map the interactions between viral proteins (VP1, VP2, VP3, VP5) and host factors will undoubtedly uncover additional vulnerabilities. The strategic targeting of the host factors that are essential for viral replication, such as the CDK1-cyclin B1 complex, PRMT5, or the chCD44 receptor, offers a higher genetic barrier to resistance than targeting a viral enzyme directly, as these host proteins are not subject to the same mutational pressure driven by the error-prone viral polymerase. The path forward for IBDV management will be defined by the ability to integrate these molecular insights into practical, field-deployable solutions that can keep pace with a rapidly evolving pathogen.

References

[1] Zhang T, Wang S, Liu Y, Qi X, Gao Y. Advances on adaptive immune responses affected by infectious bursal disease virus in chicken. Frontiers in Immunology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1330576

[2] Islam M, Nooruzzaman M, Rahman T, Mumu TT, Rahman MM, Chowdhury E, et al.. A unified genotypic classification of infectious bursal disease virus based on both genome segments. Avian Pathology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2021.1873245

[3] Huang Y, Shu G, Huang C, Han J, Li J, Chen H, et al.. Characterization and pathogenicity of a novel variant infectious bursal disease virus in China. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1039259

[4] Legnardi M, Poletto F, Talaat S, Selim KM, Moawad MK, Franzo G, et al.. First Detection and Molecular Characterization of Novel Variant Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (Genotype A2dB1b) in Egypt. Viruses. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v15122388

[5] Pikuła A, Lisowska A, Domańska-Blicharz K. Epidemiology of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus in Poland during 2016–2022. Viruses. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v15020289

[6] Zhang W, Wang X, Gao Y, Qi X. The Over-40-Years-Epidemic of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus in China. Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14102253

[7] Fan L, Wu T, Hussain A, Gao Y, Zeng X, Wang Y, et al.. Novel variant strains of infectious bursal disease virus isolated in China.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.01.023

[8] Wang Y, Fan L, Jiang N, Gao L, Li K, Gao Y, et al.. An improved scheme for infectious bursal disease virus genotype classification based on both genome-segments A and B. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63424-4

[9] Fan L, Wu T, Wang Y, Hussain A, Jiang N, Gao L, et al.. Novel variants of infectious bursal disease virus can severely damage the bursa of fabricius of immunized chickens.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108507

[10] Chen Z, Lian J, Liang Z, Leng M, Lin W, Chen F. Characterization and pathogenicity of infectious bursal disease virus in Southern China. Poultry Science. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102018

[11] Michel L, Jackwood D. Classification of infectious bursal disease virus into genogroups. Archives of Virology. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-017-3500-4

[12] Jiang N, Wang Y, Zhang W, Niu X, Huang M, Gao Y, et al.. Genotyping and Molecular Characterization of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Identified in Important Poultry-Raising Areas of China During 2019 and 2020. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.759861

[13] Wang Y, Jiang N, Fan L, Niu X, Zhang W, Huang M, et al.. Identification and Pathogenicity Evaluation of a Novel Reassortant Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (Genotype A2dB3). Viruses. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13091682

[14] Dey S, Pathak D, Ramamurthy N, Maity HK, Chellappa MM. Infectious bursal disease virus in chickens: prevalence, impact, and management strategies. Veterinary medicine. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/VMRR.S185159

[15] Mató T, Tatár-Kis T, Felföldi B, Jansson D, Homonnay Z, Bányai K, et al.. Occurrence and spread of a reassortant very virulent genotype of infectious bursal disease virus with altered VP2 amino acid profile and pathogenicity in some European countries.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108663

[16] Pikuła A, Śmietanka K, Pérez L. Emergence and expansion of novel pathogenic reassortant strains of infectious bursal disease virus causing acute outbreaks of the disease in Europe.. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13510

[17] . infectious bursal disease virus. CABI Compendium. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.79279

[18] Huang X, Liu W, Zhang J, Liu Z, Wang M, Wang L, et al.. Very virulent infectious bursal disease virus-induced immune injury is involved in inflammation, apoptosis, and inflammatory cytokines imbalance in the bursa of Fabricius.. Developmental and Comparative Immunology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2020.103839

[19] Jackwood D, Schat K, Michel L, Wit SJd. A proposed nomenclature for infectious bursal disease virus isolates. Avian Pathology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2018.1506092

[20] Giménez MC, Issa M, Sheth J, Colombo M, Terebiznik M, Delgui L. Phosphatidylinositol 3-Phosphate Mediates the Establishment of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Replication Complexes in Association with Early Endosomes. Journal of Virology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02313-20

[21] Fan L, Wang Y, Jiang N, Chen M, Gao L, Li K, et al.. Novel variant infectious bursal disease virus suppresses Newcastle disease vaccination in broiler and layer chickens. Poultry Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.037

[22] Yang H, Ye C. Reverse genetics approaches for live-attenuated vaccine development of infectious bursal disease virus.. Current Opinion in Virology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2020.08.001

[23] Jackwood D. Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (Birnaviridae). Encyclopedia of Virology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809633-8.20975-8

[24] Tomás G, Marandino A, Courtillon C, Amelot M, Keita A, Pikuła A, et al.. Antigenicity, pathogenicity and immunosuppressive effect caused by a South American isolate of infectious bursal disease virus belonging to the “distinct” genetic lineage. Avian Pathology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2019.1572867

[25] Pikuła A, Lisowska A, Jasik A, Śmietanka K. Identification and assessment of virulence of a natural reassortant of infectious bursal disease virus. Veterinary Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-018-0586-y

[26] Felice V, Franzo G, Catelli E, Francesco AD, Bonci M, Cecchinato M, et al.. Genome sequence analysis of a distinctive Italian infectious bursal disease virus. Poultry Science. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex278

[27] Nwagbo I, Shittu I, Nwosuh C, Ezeifeka GO, Odibo F, Michel L, et al.. Molecular characterization of field infectious bursal disease virus isolates from Nigeria. Veterinary World. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2016.1420-1428

[28] Raja P, Senthilkumar TMA, Parthiban M, Thangavelu A, Gowri AM, Palanisammi A, et al.. Complete Genome Sequence Analysis of a Naturally Reassorted Infectious Bursal Disease Virus from India. Genome Announcements. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00709-16

[29] Hu X, Chen Z, Wu X, Fu Q, Chen Z, Huang Y, et al.. PRMT5 Facilitates Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Replication through Arginine Methylation of VP1. Journal of Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01637-22

[30] Hu X, Chen Z, Wu X, Ding Z, Huang Y, Fu Q, et al.. Phosphorylation of VP1 Mediated by CDK1-Cyclin B1 Facilitates Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Replication. Journal of Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01941-22

[31] Wang S, Yu M, Liu A, Bao Y, Qi X, Gao L, et al.. TRIM25 inhibits infectious bursal disease virus replication by targeting VP3 for ubiquitination and degradation. PLoS Pathogens. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1009900

[32] Liu A, Pan Q, Wang S, Zhang Y, Li Y, Wang Y, et al.. Identification of Chicken CD44 as a Novel B Lymphocyte Receptor for Infectious Bursal Disease Virus. Journal of Virology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00113-22

[33] Fu M, Wang B, Chen X, He Z, Wang Y, Li X, et al.. gga-miR-454 suppresses infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) replication via directly targeting IBDV genomic segment B and cellular Suppressors of Cytokine Signaling 6 (SOCS6).. Virus Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2018.05.015

[34] Giménez MC, Zanetti F, Terebiznik M, Colombo M, Delgui L. Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Hijacks Endosomal Membranes as the Scaffolding Structure for Viral Replication. Journal of Virology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01964-17

[35] Fan L, Wang Y, Jiang N, Gao Y, Niu X, Zhang W, et al.. Residues 318 and 323 in capsid protein are involved in immune circumvention of the atypical epizootic infection of infectious bursal disease virus. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.909252

[36] Lian J, Wang Z, Xu Z, Pang Y, Leng M, Tang S, et al.. Pathogenicity and molecular characterization of infectious bursal disease virus in China. Poultry Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101502

[37] Xu A, Sun L, Tu K, Teng Q, Xue J, Zhang G. Experimental co-infection of variant infectious bursal disease virus and fowl adenovirus serotype 4 increases mortality and reduces immune response in chickens. Veterinary Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-021-00932-y

[38] Myint O, Suwanruengsri M, Araki K, Izzati UZ, Pornthummawat A, Nueangphuet P, et al.. Bursa atrophy at 28 days old caused by variant infectious bursal disease virus has a negative economic impact on broiler farms in Japan. Avian Pathology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2020.1822989

[39] Wu T, Wang Y, Li H, Fan L, Jiang N, Gao L, et al.. Naturally occurring homologous recombination between novel variant infectious bursal disease virus and intermediate vaccine strain.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108700

[40] Li J, Zheng SJ. Role of MicroRNAs in Host Defense against Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) Infection: A Hidden Front Line. Viruses. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12050543

[41] Xu A, Pei Y, Zhang K, Xue J, Ruan S, Zhang G. Phylogenetic analyses and pathogenicity of a variant infectious bursal disease virus strain isolated in China.. Virus Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2019.197833

[42] Xu Z, Yu Y, Liu Y, Ou C, Zhang Y, Liu T, et al.. Differential expression of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory genes of layer chicken bursa after experimental infection with infectious bursal disease virus.. Poultry Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez312

[43] Méndez F, Romero N, Cubas LL, Delgui L, Rodríguez D, Rodriguez J. Non-Lytic Egression of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) Particles from Infected Cells. PLoS ONE. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170080

[44] Li L, Kubasová T, Rychlík I, Hoerr F, Rautenschlein S. Infectious bursal disease virus infection leads to changes in the gut associated-lymphoid tissue and the microbiota composition. PLoS ONE. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192066

[45] Qin Y, Zheng SJ. Infectious Bursal Disease Virus-Host Interactions: Multifunctional Viral Proteins that Perform Multiple and Differing Jobs. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18010161

[46] Liu A, Li H, Qi X, Wang Q, Yang B, Wu T, et al.. Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor Triggers Inflammatory Responses During Very Virulent Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Infection. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02225

[47] Quan R, Zhu S, Wei L, Wang J, Yan X, Li Z, et al.. Transcriptional profiles in bursal B-lymphoid DT40 cells infected with very virulent infectious bursal disease virus. Virology Journal. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-016-0668-2

[48] Dey S, Chellappa MM, Pathak D, Gaikwad S, Yadav K, Ramakrishnan S, et al.. Newcastle Disease Virus Vectored Bivalent Vaccine against Virulent Infectious Bursal Disease and Newcastle Disease of Chickens. Vaccines. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines5040031

[49] Rasoli M, Yeap S, Tan SW, Roohani K, Kristeen-Teo YW, Alitheen N, et al.. Differential modulation of immune response and cytokine profiles in the bursae and spleen of chickens infected with very virulent infectious bursal disease virus. BMC Veterinary Research. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-015-0377-x

[50] Thai TN, Jang I, Kim H, Kim H, Kwon Y, Kim H. Characterization of antigenic variant infectious bursal disease virus strains identified in South Korea. Avian Pathology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2020.1869698

[51] Matteo L, Giovanni F, Maria TC, Konstantinos K, Isabel D, Marco S, et al.. Detection and molecular characterization of a new genogroup of infectious bursal disease virus in Portugal.. Avian Pathology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2021.2006606

[52] Feng X, Zhu N, Cui Y, Hou L, Zhou J, Qiu Y, et al.. Characterization and pathogenicity of a naturally reassortant and recombinant infectious bursal disease virus in China.. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14347

[53] Li G, Kuang H, Guo H, Cai L, Chu D, Wang X, et al.. Development of a recombinant VP2 vaccine for the prevention of novel variant strains of infectious bursal disease virus. Avian Pathology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2020.1791314

[54] Yılmaz A, Turan N, Bayraktar E, Gürel A, Cizmecigil UY, Aydin O, et al.. Phylogeny and evolution of infectious bursal disease virus circulating in Turkish broiler flocks. Poultry Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey551

[55] Abed M, Soubies S, Courtillon C, Briand F, Allée C, Amelot M, et al.. Infectious bursal disease virus in Algeria: Detection of highly pathogenic reassortant viruses.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.01.029

[56] Alkie T, Rautenschlein S. Infectious bursal disease virus in poultry: current status and future prospects. Veterinary medicine. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/VMRR.S68905

[57] Sedeik M, Awad A, Rashed H, Elfeil W. Variations in Pathogenicity and Molecular Characterization of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) In Egypt. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3844/AJAVSP.2018.76.86

[58] Zheng S, Ma L, Wang X, Lu L, Ma S, Xu B, et al.. RPA-Cas12aDS: A Visual and Fast Molecular Diagnostics Platform Based on RPA-CRISPR-Cas12a Method for Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Detection.. Journal of Virological Methods. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2022.114523

[59] Eladl AH, Mosad SM, El-shafei RA, Saleh R, Ali HS, Badawy B, et al.. Immunostimulant effect of a mixed herbal extract on infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) vaccinated chickens in the context of a co-infection model of avian influenza virus H9N2 and IBDV.. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2020.101505

[60] Sachan S, Dhama K, Latheef SK, Samad HA, Mariappan AK, Munuswamy P, et al.. Immunomodulatory Potential of Tinospora cordifolia and CpG ODN (TLR21 Agonist) against the Very Virulent, Infectious Bursal Disease Virus in SPF Chicks. Vaccines. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines7030106

[61] Sabzehparvar F, Cherati TR, Mohsenifar A, Shojaei TR, Tabatabaei M. Immobilization of gold nanoparticles with rhodamine to enhance the fluorescence resonance energy transfer between quantum dots and rhodamine; new method for downstream sensing of infectious bursal disease virus.. Spectrochimica Acta Part A - Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2018.12.050

[62] Dulwich KL, Asfor A, Gray AG, Nair V, Broadbent A. An Ex Vivo Chicken Primary Bursal-cell Culture Model to Study Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Pathogenesis. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3791/58489

[63] Anyanwu AA, Jimam N, Omale S, Wannang N. Antiviral activities of Cucumis metuliferus fruits alkaloids on Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV). The Journal of Phytopharmacology. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31254/phyto.2017.6206

[64] Gul I, Hassan A, Muneeb J, Akram T, Haq E, Shah R, et al.. A multiepitope vaccine candidate against infectious bursal disease virus using immunoinformatics-based reverse vaccinology approach. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1116400

[65] Wang Y, Jiang N, Fan L, Gao L, Li K, Gao Y, et al.. Development of a Viral-Like Particle Candidate Vaccine Against Novel Variant Infectious Bursal Disease Virus. Vaccines. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020142

[66] Fan L, Wang Y, Jiang N, Gao L, Li K, Gao Y, et al.. A reassortment vaccine candidate of the novel variant infectious bursal disease virus.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108905

[67] Bashir K, Kappala D, Singh Y, Dar J, Mariappan AK, Kumar A, et al.. Combination of TLR2 and TLR3 agonists derepress infectious bursal disease virus vaccine-induced immunosuppression in the chicken. Scientific Reports. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44578-5

[68] Ganguly B, Umapathi V, Rastogi S. Nitric oxide induced by Indian ginseng root extract inhibits Infectious Bursal Disease virus in chicken embryo fibroblasts in vitro. Journal of Animal Science and Technology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40781-017-0156-2

[69] Li K, Liu Y, Liu C, Gao L, Zhang Y, Cui H, et al.. Recombinant Marek’s disease virus type 1 provides full protection against very virulent Marek’s and infectious bursal disease viruses in chickens. Scientific Reports. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39263