Comparisons of residues between sub-types of influenza virus is increasingly used to assess the zoonotic potential of a circulating strain and for comparative studies across subtypes. An analysis of N-terminal cleavage sites for thirteen subtypes of influenza A hemagglutinin (HA) sequences, has previously been described by Nobusawa and colleagues. We have expanded this analysis for the eighteen known subtypes of influenza. Due to differences in the length of HA, we have included strains from multiple clades of H1 and H5, as well as strains of H5 and H7 subtypes with both high and low pathogenicity. Analysis of known structures of influenza A HA enables us to define amino acids which are structurally and functionally equivalent across all HA subtypes using a numbering system based on the mature HA sequence. We provide a list of equivalences for amino acids which are known to affect the phenotype of the virus.
Citation: Burke DF, Smith DJ (2014) A Recommended Numbering Scheme for Influenza A HA Subtypes. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112302. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112302
Editor: Paul Digard, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Received: March 27, 2014; Accepted: October 10, 2014; Published: November 12, 2014
Copyright: © 2014 Burke, Smith. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: Funding provided by (DJS) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Global Health (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/) Grant # OPPGH5383, (DJS) European Union FP7 program ANTIGONE (http://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/852_en.html) (278976) and (DJS) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious disease (http://www.niaid.nih.gov) Contract HHSN266200700010C. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Increasingly, amino acid changes in HA, resulting from either natural evolution or experimental design, are compared to amino acids within another subtype. A common example are those mutations that have been shown to confer binding to human glycans. In strains from the H3 subtype, these are Gln226Leu and Gly228Ser whereas in strains from the H5 subtype these mutations are positions 222 and 224. Although simple 'rules-of-thumb' can be derived, such as the subtracting four from the H3 numbering to get the position in H5 viruses, this is not always straightforward, as typified by the recent focus on H7 viruses. The HA of H7 strains contain many amino acid insertions and deletions (indels) relative to viruses from the other subtypes. For amino acids close to the receptor binding site, such as the aforementioned mutations, the H7 numbering differs from H3 numbering by nine residues (Gln217 and Gly219). However, two other mutations of concern, His103Tyr and Thr315Ile, which were recently shown to facilitate the aerosol transmission of avian A/H5N1 viruses between mammals –, lie in the N and C termini of HA1, respectively. Due to the indels in these regions, the equivalent amino acids in H7 strains differ by three (Gln100) and six (Thr309) amino acids, respectively. As shown for H7, the conversion of residue numbering between subtypes varies depending on the region of HA being compared. Yet another complication arises due to genetic changes within a subtype which, although uncommon, do occur. Over one-fifth of the avian H5N1 strains in the Middle East sequenced to date have a deletion between amino acids positions 128 and 130 (mature HA H5N1 numbering). This deletion was also found in human seasonal H1 strains after 1995 but was not present in early H1 strains or any of the H1pdm strains currently circulating . Similarly, a clade of H7 strains circulating in North America and Canada since 1996 has been shown to have eight amino acids deleted, located surprisingly close to the receptor binding site . Conversion rules thus also depend upon the lineage of the subtypes that are being compared.
Nobusawa and colleagues previously predicted the N-terminal sequence for thirteen subtypes of HA based on the likely signal peptide cleavage site of the N-terminal signal peptide , thus providing a numbering scheme based on the mature sequence of HA. Although widely cited, not all publications use this numbering. For example, only two (3M6S and 3ZTN) out of the thirteen currently available crystal structures of HA of the vaccine strain of H1pdm (A/California/04/2009) start with the mature HA sequence (Asp-Thr-Leu-Cys-Ile). Alternative structures include six (3AL4, 4JTV and 4JU0) or ten (3LZG, 3UBE, 3UBN, 3UBQ and 4F3Z) additional N-terminal amino acids. This variation in N-terminal numbering, in addition to subtype specific differences caused by indels, can increase confusion in interpreting amino acid equivalences. To avoid inaccuracies, it is important to have a scheme to define and compare numbering between subtypes.
Here we report an updated prediction of the proteolytic cleavage sites for all subtypes. We analyse known structures of HA to enable us to define amino acids which are structurally and functionally equivalent across the eighteen currently known subtypes of influenza A. Combining both of these results, we are able to compile a list of equivalences for amino acids which are known to affect the phenotype of the virus for all known HA subtypes.
Materials and Methods
Representative sequences of HA for each subtype were downloaded from the Influenza Research Database (IRD). Potential N-terminal cleavage sites were predicted using the signalP – web-server. The amino acid sequence N-terminal to the predicted cleavage site was removed from each sequence. If a crystal structure was available, these were aligned based on their structural similarity using Pymol . We then aligned the remaining sequences to the sequences of the other subtypes using FUGUE . In general, amino acids in protein secondary structures (α-helices, β-strands) which are inaccessible to solvent or involved in interactions with other amino acids, are more conserved than those in loop regions or those exposed to solvent. Thus, amino acid insertions or deletions are more likely to occur solvent exposed regions or in regions without well-defined secondary structures. FUGUE uses knowledge of these differences in evolutionary constraints, in addition to sequence conservation, to aid its sequence alignment. This structure-based sequence alignment was subsequently manually adjusted based on inspection of the structures to accurately reflect structural similarity of loop regions.
We have re-analysed the predicted N-terminal signal peptide cleavage sites of subtypes H1 to H13 and have extended this analysis to include subtypes H14 to H18. Table 1 shows the signal peptide and N-terminal amino acid sequence of the mature protein based on the cleavage sites predicted using signalP –, for each of the HA subtypes. More than half of all subtypes are predicted to be cleaved at an aspartic acid which is three amino acids N-terminal to a completely conserved cysteine. In agreement with Nobusawa, three subtypes are predicted to be cleaved at the amino acid preceding this aspartic acid at either a leucine (H10) or a tyrosine (H8 and H12). Three subtypes, H3, H5 and H14, lack the aspartic acid and are predicted to be cleaved at a glutamine, resulting in a longer mature N-terminal region. The signal peptide contains a stretch of about 10 hydrophobic amino acids that have a tendency to form a single alpha-helix, albeit with little sequence conservation between subtypes. In total, between 16 and 19 amino acids are removed from the N-terminal sequence to facilitate the movement of the virus through the ER membrane.
To define amino acids which are structurally equivalent across subtypes, we compared the available protein structures of all subtypes of HA to produce a sequence alignment based on the structural similarity of HA. For those subtypes without an HA structure (H4, H6, H8, H10–H18), we aligned their sequences to those of the other subtypes using an algorithm which considers structural features in addition to sequence conservation (see Material & Methods) . The structure-based sequence alignment of HA1 is shown in figure 1. The subtypes have been ordered according to their phylogenetic grouping  and coloured according to sequence conservation . We have highlighted those regions of HA which show significant differences in structure between strains of different subtypes. These are typically loops between secondary structures and are regions which contain insertions and deletions. Amino acids in these regions should only be considered to be equivalent when comparing closely related subtypes.
Alignment of mature HA sequence for all known HA sub-types. Additional strains have been included for sub-types which show variation in the length of HA. Sequences are ordered according to their phylogenetic classification as group 1 (magenta bar) or group 2 (orange bar) HA. The protein secondary structure elements, α-helices and β-strands, are highlighted with red bars and cyan arrows, respectively. A blue box highlights regions which have high structural variation across all subtypes. Amino acids within these regions should not be defined as equivalent between all sub-types. Each amino acid is coloured according to clustalx2 rules . Briefly, glycine and proline are coloured orange and yellow, respectively. Conserved positively charged residues and negatively charged residues are coloured red and magenta, respectively. Conserved cysteines are coloured pink while conserved serine or threonine residues are in green. The remaining amino acids, if conserved are coloured blue. The sequences representative of each subtype are as follows: H1(A/United Kingdom/1/1933); H1pdm(A/California/04/2009); H2(A/Singapore/1/1957); H3(A/Aichi/2/1968); H4(A/swine/Ontario/01911/2/1999); H5(A/Vietnam/1203/2004); H5c221(A/chicken/Egypt/0915-NLQP/2009); H6(A/chicken/Taiwan/0705/1999); H7(A/Netherlands/219/2003); H8(A/turkey/Ontario/6118/1968); H9(A/swine/HongKong/9/1998); H10(A/mallard/bavaria/3/2006); H11(A/duck/England/1/1956); H12(A/duck/Alberta/60/1976); H13(A/gull/Maryland/704/1977); H14(A/mallard/Astrakhan/263/1982); H15(A/duck/Australia/341/1983); H16(A/black-headed-gull/Turkmenistan/13/1976); H17(A/little-yellow-shouldered-bat/Guatemala/060/2010); H18(A/flat-facedbat/Peru/033/2010).
As previously described, some subtypes show clade specific differences in the length of the amino acid sequence of HA. We have therefore distinguished in our analysis H1 strains post-1995 and strains from clade 2.2.1 of H5. Additionally, the insertion of many positively charged amino acids in the C-terminal of HA1 in some strains of H5 and H7 subtypes is well known to increase the pathology of viral infection in poultry, leading to high rates of fatality . A consequence is that the numbering of positions C-terminal to the cleavage site (position 326 for low pathogenic strains of H5) will differ. For H5 and H7 subtypes, we therefore also include both low-pathogenic (H5N1:A/mallard/Italy/3401/2005; H7:A/Turkey/Italy/220158/2002) and high-pathogenic (H5N1:A/Vietnam/1203/2004; H7N7:A/Netherlands/219/2003) strains. The sequence alignment including all subtypes spanning both HA1 and HA2 is available as File S1.
From these alignments, we can now derive residue numbering in each subtype, of every position of HA, relative to its mature sequence. This list of equivalences for all residue positions and across all subtypes are available as File S2 and at http://www.antigenic-cartography.org/surveillance/evergreen/HAnumbering. Positions which are most often compared across subtypes are those which have been shown to be associated with changes in phenotype. In 2012, the WHO Collaborating Center for Influenza Reference and Research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta compiled an inventory of amino acid mutations found in H5N1 viruses http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/h5n1/inventory.htm). The equivalent residue numbering for these mutations in HA are listed in Table 2 for those subtypes which circulate in humans (H1, H3) or from which zoonoses frequently occur (H5, H7, H9).
The length of the HA segment of influenza A shows substantial variation both between and within HA subtypes. This is caused by both changes in the length of the N-terminal signal peptide cleavage site and subtype specific amino acid insertions and deletions within the HA. These differences often makes it difficult to compare amino acid changes within HA of one subtype to those seen in another subtype.
We have re-assessed the predicted N-terminal signal peptide cleavage sites of all known subtypes (H1 to H18), confirming the previous definitions of the thirteen subtypes of HA previously reported by Nobusawa . Using a structure-based approach we have analysed the structural and functional conservation of each position of HA across all subtypes. We have identified regions of HA which are structurally conserved across subtypes, including both low and highly pathogenic strains of H5 and H7 subtypes, and strains of H1 and H5 which show clade specific differences in the length of HA. From this data we have defined equivalent residue numbering for each subtype.
It is often stated that amino acid positions are 'equivalent' but rarely is this term defined explicitly. In structural biology, when comparing structures of proteins with evolutionary divergent sequences, such as HA from different subtypes, segments of the structure can be described as being either structurally conserved regions (SCRs) or structurally variable regions (SVRs). SCRs have similar structural features, such as the shape of the peptide backbone and the orientation of the sidechain atoms, and these regions usually have high sequence conservation. Like many proteins, the conserved regions within HA are those which are critical for its function, such as the receptor-binding site, or those that are required for the correct folding or stability of the protein structure. Amino acids within these regions can be described as equivalent in the sense that they will adopt nearly identical conformations and form similar interactions with other amino acids or bio-molecules. It is equally important to appreciate the limitations of a sequence alignment. Most alignment algorithms are parameterised to favour as few insertions and deletions as possible and do not always reflect local structural similarity. It is possible to have regions of sequences aligned which show little structural similarity and thus should not be described as SCRs. However, it needs to be noted that the SCR designation is not an absolute. Whilst many SCRs can be conserved across highly divergent sequences (between influenza A and influenza B viruses, for example), it is possible to define SCRs which are only conserved between closely related sequences, such as only between group 1 sub-types of HA.
In contrast, SVRs are regions which have very little structural or functional similarity between two related proteins. These regions are usually in the solvent exposed turns of the protein structure. These are also the regions where insertions and deletions of amino acids frequently occur, since they can be accommodated without major disruption of the fold or function of the protein. Amino acids in these regions should not be described as equivalent and comparisons between sub-types has little biological relevance.
Many studies attempt to compare, and sometimes replicate, mutations seen in one subtype, such as H5, to those in another subtype. Careful consideration of the level of structural and functional conservation of that region (its equivalence), however, is crucial. This is especially important when inferring analogous mutations from subtypes belonging to a different phylogenetic group. We feel that the use of this set of residue numbering and analysis of structural conservation will facilitate cross-subtype comparisons and reduce confusion in reporting amino acid numbering.
Supporting Information Legends
Structure based sequence alignment for HA. The sequence alignment including all subtypes spanning both HA1 and HA2. This alignment includes a strain of seasonal H1N1 strain post-1995 (A/NewCaledonia/20/1999/H1N1) and strains of H5 (A/mallard/Italy/3401/2005/H5N1) and H7 (A/Turkey/Italy/220158/2002/H7N3) with low pathogenicity.
Equivalent amino acid numbering for all known HA subtypes. Residue numbering is based on the mature sequence of HA across all subtypes. The amino acid at each position for the representative strain of that subtype is also given. Positions where there is a deletion relative to other subtypes are represented by a “Δ”.
Conceived and designed the experiments: DFB. Performed the experiments: DFB. Analyzed the data: DFB DJS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DFB DJS. Wrote the paper: DFB DJS.
- 1. Imai M, Watanabe T, Hatta M, Das SC, Ozawa M, et al. (2012) Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature 486: 420–428.
- 2. Herfst S, Schrauwen EJA, Linster M, Chutinimitkul S, de Wit E, et al. (2012) Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science 336: 1534–1541.
- 3. McDonald NJ, Smith CB, Cox NJ (2007) Antigenic drift in the evolution of H1N1 influenza A viruses resulting from deletion of a single amino acid in the haemagglutinin gene. J Gen Virol 88: 3209–3213.
- 4. Suarez DL, Garcia M, Latimer J, Senne D, Perdue M (1999) Phylogenetic analysis of H7 avian influenza viruses isolated from the live bird markets of the Northeast United States. J Virol 73: 3567–3573.
- 5. Nobusawa E, Aoyama T, Kato H, Suzuki Y, Tateno Y, et al. (1991) Comparison of complete amino acid sequences and receptor-binding properties among 13 serotypes of hemagglutinins of influenza A viruses. Virology 182: 475–485.
- 6. Von Heijne G, Gavel Y (1988) Topogenic signals in integral membrane proteins. Eur J Biochem 174: 671–678.
- 7. Petersen TN, Brunak S, von Heijne G, Nielsen H (2011) SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions. Nat Methods 8: 785–786.
- 8. DeLano WL (2002) The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System. Schrödinger LLC
- 9. Shi J, Blundell TL, Mizuguchi K (2001) FUGUE: sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. J Mol Biol 310: 243–257.
- 10. Medina RA, Garcia-Sastre A (2011) Influenza A viruses: new research developments. Nat Rev Microbiol 9: 590–603.
- 11. Larkin M, Blackshields G, Brown N, Chenna R, McGettigan P, et al. (2007) ClustalW and ClustalX version 2. Bioinformatics 23: 2947–2948.
- 12. Steinhauer DA (1999) Role of hemagglutinin cleavage for the pathogenicity of influenza virus. Virology 258: 1–20.
- 13. Reed ML, Yen H-L, DuBois RM, Bridges OA, Salomon R, et al. (2009) Amino acid residues in the fusion peptide pocket regulate the pH of activation of the H5N1 influenza virus hemagglutinin protein. J Virol 83: 3568–3580.
- 14. Deshpande KL, Fried VA, Ando M, Webster RG (1987) Glycosylation affects cleavage of an H5N2 influenza virus hemagglutinin and regulates virulence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 84: 36–40.
- 15. Yamada S, Suzuki Y, Suzuki T, Le MQ, Nidom CA, et al. (2006) Haemagglutinin mutations responsible for the binding of H5N1 influenza A viruses to human-type receptors. Nature 444: 378–382.
- 16. Wang W, Lu B, Zhou H, Suguitan AL, Cheng X, et al. (2010) Glycosylation at 158N of the hemagglutinin protein and receptor binding specificity synergistically affect the antigenicity and immunogenicity of a live attenuated H5N1 A/Vietnam/1203/2004 vaccine virus in ferrets. J Virol 84: 6570–6577.
- 17. Auewarakul P, Suptawiwat O, Kongchanagul A, Sangma C, Suzuki Y, et al. (2007) An avian influenza H5N1 virus that binds to a human-type receptor. J Virol 81: 9950–9955.
- 18. Watanabe Y, Ibrahim MS, Ellakany HF, Kawashita N, Mizuike R, et al. (2011) Acquisition of human-type receptor binding specificity by new H5N1 influenza virus sublineages during their emergence in birds in Egypt. PLoS Pathog 7: e1002068.
- 19. Yang Z-Y, Wei C-J, Kong W-P, Wu L, Xu L, et al. (2007) Immunization by avian H5 influenza hemagglutinin mutants with altered receptor binding specificity. Science 317: 825–828.
- 20. Naughtin M, Dyason JC, Mardy S, Sorn S, Von Itzstein M, et al. (2011) Neuraminidase inhibitor sensitivity and receptor-binding specificity of Cambodian clade 1 highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55: 2004–2010.
- 21. Chutinimitkul S, Herfst S, Steel J, Lowen AC, Ye J, et al. (2010) Virulence-associated substitution D222G in the hemagglutinin of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus affects receptor binding. J Virol 84: 11802–11813.
- 22. Chen LM, Blixt O, Stevens J, Lipatov AS, Davis CT, et al. (2012) In vitro evolution of H5N1 avian influenza virus toward human-type receptor specificity. Virology 422: 105–113.
- 23. Gambaryan A, Tuzikov A, Pazynina G, Bovin N, Balish A, et al. (2006) Evolution of the receptor binding phenotype of influenza A (H5) viruses. Virology 344: 432–438.
- 24. Stevens J, Blixt O, Tumpey TM, Taubenberger JK, Paulson JC, et al. (2006) Structure and receptor specificity of the hemagglutinin from an H5N1 influenza virus. Science 312: 404–410.
- 25. Bosch FX, Garten W, Klenk HD, Rott R (1981) Proteolytic cleavage of influenza virus hemagglutinins: primary structure of the connecting peptide between HA1 and HA2 determines proteolytic cleavability and pathogenicity of Avian influenza viruses. Virology 113: 725–735.
- 26. Zaraket H, Bridges O a, Duan S, Baranovich T, Yoon S-W, et al. (2013) Increased acid stability of the hemagglutinin protein enhances H5N1 influenza virus growth in the upper respiratory tract but is insufficient for transmission in ferrets. J Virol 87: 9911–9922.
- 27. Murakami S, Horimoto T, Ito M, Takano R, Katsura H, et al. (2012) Enhanced Growth of Influenza Vaccine Seed Viruses in Vero Cells Mediated by Broadening the Optimal pH Range for Virus Membrane Fusion. J Virol 86: 1405–1410.