Hensley et al. (2009) proposed that antigenic drift of human influenza A virus is driven substantially by Darwinian selection on hemagglutinin (HA) receptor-binding avidity, with antibody-epitope escape arising partly as a by-product, and derived from this model four testable follow-ups: what fraction of fixed substitutions in circulating human strains is selected primarily for altered receptor binding rather than direct antibody-epitope escape; by what physical mechanism increased positive charge on HA enhances multivalent receptor binding; whether routine surveillance of isolate avidity can forecast epidemic variants; and whether expanding pediatric vaccination slows drift. None of the four components is resolved: no study quantifies the population-level fraction of avidity-selected fixations; the electrostatic-versus-structural mechanism remains undetermined and the question has been complicated by glycan-specificity and epistatic findings; avidity surveillance has not been validated for forecasting (the field moved to sequence-based and neutralization-landscape prediction); and the pediatric-vaccination prediction is untested in natural human transmission networks, with theoretical models giving context-dependent answers.

Background

Seasonal influenza A viruses evade the immunity left in the human population by prior infection or vaccination by gradually changing the amino-acid sequence of hemagglutinin (HA), the viral surface protein that attaches the virus to cells by binding sialic-acid-containing sugar chains (glycans) on the cell membrane. This immune-driven evolutionary process is called antigenic drift, and it is why influenza vaccines must be reformulated almost every year. Antibodies that neutralize influenza mostly bind a handful of exposed loops on HA's globular head, termed antigenic sites or epitopes (in the H3 subtype, sites A–E; in H1, Sa, Sb, Ca, Cb). The dominant framework for drift came from antigenic cartography (Smith et al., 2004): the standard hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay — which tests whether reference antisera prevent virus from agglutinating red blood cells — is used to place viruses on a map, revealing punctuated antigenic cluster transitions driven by substitutions in the epitopes. Drift was therefore read as positive selection for reduced antibody binding at epitopes.

Hensley et al. (2009) challenged this picture by serially passaging an H1N1 virus between vaccinated (immune) and naive mice. Immune mice selected mutants with increased receptor-binding avidity — the collective strength with which the several hundred HA trimers on one virion attach it to the cell surface, a multivalent interaction — while naive mice selected mutants with decreased avidity, because excessively tight binding impairs release by neuraminidase (NA), the viral enzyme that cleaves the same sialic acids; this trade-off is called the HA–NA functional balance. Avidity-modulating substitutions occurred throughout the HA globular domain, frequently overlapped the antigenic sites, and often reduced antibody binding as a side effect. The authors proposed that drift is driven by selection on binding avidity, with antigenic change partly a by-product. Supporting observations were that 11 of 18 avidity-increasing substitutions raised the net positive charge of HA — tentatively attributed to electrostatic attraction between positively charged HA and negatively charged cell surfaces — and that the model could explain why roughly 30% of historically fixed substitutions lie outside the canonical antigenic sites. From this model they extrapolated two epidemiological claims: that shrinking the mostly-child naive subpopulation by expanding pediatric vaccination would retard drift, and that routine monitoring of circulating isolates' binding avidity might predict which mutants have epidemic potential.

Each pillar of this program has an unresolved empirical counterpart, and together they form one question: how much of human antigenic drift is actually selection on receptor binding rather than on antibody epitopes, by what physical mechanism, and with what consequences for surveillance and vaccination policy. A methodological trap sharpens the stakes: the HAI assay, the backbone of global antigenic surveillance, conflates antigenicity with avidity, because a virus that simply binds cells more strongly appears 'antigenically novel' when more antibody is needed to block agglutination. Modern tools that make the question tractable include deep mutational scanning (DMS), which measures the effect of amino-acid substitutions at HA positions on a chosen phenotype (antibody escape, receptor binding, viral growth) in one high-throughput experiment, and glycan microarrays, which measure binding to defined sialylated glycans rather than to whole cells.

Problem Statement

Following Hensley et al. (2009), determine the population-level contribution of receptor-binding-avidity selection to antigenic drift of circulating human influenza A viruses, together with the mechanism of that contribution and its epidemiological consequences. Concretely: (1) Quantify what fraction of amino-acid substitutions fixed in circulating human strains (principally A/H3N2, and where data allow A/H1N1) are selected primarily for altered receptor-binding avidity rather than for direct escape from antibody binding at epitopes, with defensible uncertainty and a decomposition across HA regions and evolutionary periods. (2) Establish the physical mechanism by which increased positive charge on HA enhances multivalent receptor binding — direct electrostatic attraction to negatively charged cell surfaces versus indirect structural effects such as altered glycan specificity, glycosylation, or HA–NA functional balance. (3) Determine whether routine measurement of receptor-binding avidity of clinical isolates (and in which assay format) can reliably forecast which variants spread in heterogeneous human populations, relative to existing sequence-based and neutralization-based forecasting. (4) Test the model's prediction that expanding pediatric vaccination slows antigenic drift in natural human transmission networks, including the magnitude and timescale of any such effect. These four items correspond to a model claim, a tentatively proposed mechanism, and two predictions stated by Hensley et al. (2009); each remains empirically unresolved, and the paper itself does not prescribe how they must be jointly tested. These four items are jointly required: each is independently refutable, but the task is resolved only when all four are addressed, and resolving any proper subset — including the core quantification in (1) alone — does not by itself establish the population-level contribution, its mechanism, and its epidemiological consequences.

References

  1. Hensley SE, Das SR, Bailey AL, Schmidt LM, Hickman HD, Jayaraman A, Viswanathan K, Raman R, Sasisekharan R, Bennink JR, Yewdell JW (2009). Hemagglutinin receptor binding avidity drives influenza A virus antigenic drift. Science 326:734-736. doi:10.1126/science.1178258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178258
  2. Smith DJ, Lapedes AS, de Jong JC, Bestebroer TM, Rimmelzwaan GF, Osterhaus ADME, Fouchier RAM (2004). Mapping the antigenic and genetic evolution of influenza virus. Science 305:371-376. doi:10.1126/science.1097211. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097211
  3. Li Y, Bostick DL, Sullivan CB, Myers JL, Griesemer SB, Stgeorge K, Plotkin JB, Hensley SE (2013). Single hemagglutinin mutations that alter both antigenicity and receptor binding avidity influence influenza virus antigenic clustering. Journal of Virology. doi:10.1128/JVI.01023-13. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01023-13
  4. Yuan HY, Koelle K (2013). The evolutionary dynamics of receptor binding avidity in influenza A: a mathematical model for a new antigenic drift hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0204. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0204
  5. Koel BF, Burke DF, Bestebroer TM, van der Vliet S, Zondag GC, Vervaet G, Skepner E, Lewis NS, Spronken MI, Russell CA, Eropkin MY, Hurt AC, Barr IG, de Jong JC, Rimmelzwaan GF, Osterhaus AD, Fouchier RA, Smith DJ (2013). Substitutions near the receptor binding site determine major antigenic change during influenza virus evolution. Science. doi:10.1126/science.1244730. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244730
  6. Bedford T, Suchard MA, Lemey P, Dudas G, Gregory V, Hay AJ, McCauley JW, Russell CA, Smith DJ, Rambaut A (2014). Integrating influenza antigenic dynamics with molecular evolution. eLife. doi:10.7554/eLife.01914. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.01914
  7. Meyer AG, Wilke CO (2015). Geometric constraints dominate the antigenic evolution of influenza H3N2 hemagglutinin. PLoS Pathogens. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004940. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004940
  8. Lin YP, Xiong X, Wharton SA, Martin SR, Coombs PJ, Vachieri SG, Christodoulou E, Walker PA, Liu J, Skehel JJ, Gamblin SJ, Hay AJ, Daniels RS, McCauley JW (2012). Evolution of the receptor binding properties of the influenza A(H3N2) hemagglutinin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218841110. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218841110
  9. Arinaminpathy N, Grenfell B (2010). Dynamics of glycoprotein charge in the evolutionary history of human influenza. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015674. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015674
  10. Pan K, Long J, Sun H, Tobin GJ, Nara PL, Deem MW (2011). Selective pressure to increase charge in immunodominant epitopes of the H3 hemagglutinin influenza protein. Journal of Molecular Evolution. doi:10.1007/s00239-010-9405-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-010-9405-4
  11. Kobayashi Y, Suzuki Y (2012). Compensatory evolution of net-charge in influenza A virus hemagglutinin. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040422. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040422
  12. Saad-Roy CM, Arinaminpathy N, Wingreen NS, Levin SA, Akey JM, Grenfell BT (2020). Implications of localized charge for human influenza A H1N1 hemagglutinin evolution: insights from deep mutational scans. PLoS Computational Biology. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007892. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007892
  13. Soundararajan V, Zheng S, Patel N, Warnock K, Raman R, Wilson IA, Raguram S, Sasisekharan V, Sasisekharan R (2011). Networks link antigenic and receptor-binding sites of influenza hemagglutinin: mechanistic insight into fitter strain propagation. Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/srep00200. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00200
  14. Peng W, de Vries RP, Grant OC, Thompson AJ, McBride R, Tsogtbaatar B, Lee PS, Razi N, Wilson IA, Woods RJ, Paulson JC (2017). Recent H3N2 viruses have evolved specificity for extended, branched human-type receptors, conferring potential for increased avidity. Cell Host & Microbe. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2016.11.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2016.11.004
  15. Byrd-Leotis L, Gao C, Jia N, Mehta AY, Trost J, Cummings SF, Heimburg-Molinaro J, Cummings RD, Steinhauer DA (2019). Antigenic pressure on H3N2 influenza virus drift strains imposes constraints on binding to sialylated receptors but not phosphorylated glycans. Journal of Virology. doi:10.1128/JVI.01178-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01178-19
  16. Lei R, Liang W, Ouyang WO, Hernandez Garcia A, Kikuchi C, Wang S, McBride R, Tan TJC, Sun Y, Chen C, Graham CS, Rodriguez LA, Shen IR, Choi D, Bruzzone R, Paulson JC, Nair SK, Mok CKP, Wu NC (2024). Epistasis mediates the evolution of the receptor binding mode in recent human H3N2 hemagglutinin. Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49487-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49487-4
  17. Liang R, Peccati F, Ponse NLD, Uslu E, de Rooij AJH, Han AX, Boons GJ, Unione L, de Vries RP (2025). Epistasis in the receptor-binding domain of contemporary H3N2 viruses that reverted to bind sialylated di-LacNAc repeats. Cell Reports. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116007
  18. Hay JA, Junus A, Riley S, Yuan H (2020). Stabilizing selection of seasonal influenza receptor binding in populations with partial immunity. bioRxiv preprint. doi:10.1101/2020.06.27.175190. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.27.175190
  19. Welsh FC, Eguia RT, Lee JM, Haddox HK, Galloway J, Van Vinh Chau N, Loes AN, Huddleston J, Yu TC, Quynh Le M, Nhat NTD, Thi Le Thanh N, Greninger AL, Chu HY, Englund JA, Bedford T, Matsen FA, Boni MF, Bloom JD (2024). Age-dependent heterogeneity in the antigenic effects of mutations to influenza hemagglutinin. Cell Host & Microbe. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2024.06.015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2024.06.015
  20. Morris DH, Gostic KM, Pompei S, Bedford T, Łuksza M, Neher RA, Grenfell BT, Lässig M, McCauley JW (2018). Predictive modeling of influenza shows the promise of applied evolutionary biology. Trends in Microbiology. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2017.09.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2017.09.004
  21. Kikawa C, Huddleston J, Loes AN, Turner SA, Lee J, Barr IG, Cowling BJ, Englund JA, Greninger AL, Harvey R, Hasegawa H, Ho F, Lacombe K, Leung NHL, Lewis NS, Peck H, Watanabe S, Smith DJ, Bedford T, Bloom JD (2025). Near real-time data on the human neutralizing antibody landscape to influenza virus to inform vaccine-strain selection in September 2025. Virus Evolution. doi:10.1093/ve/veaf086. https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/veaf086
  22. Gutierrez MA, Gog JR (2023). The importance of vaccinated individuals to population-level evolution of pathogens. Journal of Theoretical Biology. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2023.111493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2023.111493
  23. Lafont BAP, Bennink JR (2020). Slowing influenza virus evolution: a role for multiple synergistic antiviral specificities in vaccination strategies. Viral Immunology. doi:10.1089/vim.2019.0167. https://doi.org/10.1089/vim.2019.0167
  24. Sealy JE, Yaqub T, Peacock TP, Chang P, Ermetal B, Clements A, Sadeyen JR, Mehboob A, Shelton H, Bryant JE, Daniels RS, McCauley JW, Iqbal M (2018). Association of increased receptor-binding avidity of influenza A(H9N2) viruses with escape from antibody-based immunity and enhanced zoonotic potential. Emerging Infectious Diseases. doi:10.3201/eid2501.180616. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2501.180616