Influenza viruses are major pathogens that cause seasonal epidemics and global pandemics. Each year in the United States more than 200,000 people are hospitalized and 20,000–36,000 people die from flu-related complications
[1]. Due to rapid accumulation of mutations to escape host defense mechanisms, the vaccine components must be frequently updated to protect the human population against influenza. There are three types of influenza viruses, A, B and C. Type A viruses are divided into subtypes according to cross-reactivity of sera with viral surface glycoprotein antigens; to date these are subtypes H1 to H16 of the hemagglutinin (HA) and N1 to N9 of neuraminidase (NA) although an H17 has been recently proposed
[2]. H1N1 and H3N2 along with type B viruses are currently circulating in the human population and these are the antigens in the trivalent vaccines. HA is involved in two steps of the process of influenza infection. It binds the virus to sialic acid residues of glycoproteins or perhaps glycolipids that act as receptors on host cells then, following endocytosis, HA mediates the fusion of viral and cellular membranes to allow release of the viral genome-polymerase complex into the cell (reviewed by Skehel and Wiley
[3]). Neutralizing antibodies directed against the hemagglutinin are considered the most protective against influenza virus infection and vaccine responses are most commonly tested by hemagglutination-inhibition assays.
To escape from neutralizing antibodies produced in response to infection and, most recently, mass vaccination, changes in HA have accumulated in a process named antigenic drift over the 43 years since the H3N2 subtype of influenza virus was first isolated from humans in 1968. From 1968 to 2010 there have been 108 amino acid changes identified at 63 residue positions in HA1 (total length 328 amino acids) in the major epidemic strains and most of these changes are considered to result from antigenic drift because the majority (85.5%) are clustered into regions called antigenic sites. “Antigenic site” was an operational term introduced by Gerhard and Webster
[4] to describe specificities of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Antibodies that competed with each other for binding were considered to bind the same antigenic site. Webster and Laver identified four antigenic sites on the surface of H3 HA (A–D) by competition assays
[5] and Skehel identified a fifth antigenic site, E
[6]. Each antigenic site contains many epitopes, structurally defined as the amino acids on the antigen that contact amino acids of the antibody
[7]. Competition between antibodies that bind the same site suggested that epitopes in the same site are physically overlapping but are distinct, and no one antibody molecule binds to the whole of an antigenic site. Evidence for the location of epitopes came from characterization of escape mutants, selected by mAbs, that contain single amino acid substitutions that reduce binding of the mAb to undetectable levels
[6],
[8]–
[11]. The three-dimensional structure of A/Aichi/2/68 X-31 HA
[12] showed the location of escape mutations selected by monoclonal antibodies. Assuming that the amino acid that changes in an escape mutant is within the epitope, there was now an indication of where the antigenic sites are located. Wiley and Wilson
[9],
[13] took into account the sites of all known escape mutations and their corresponding antigenic site assignment, together with changes in naturally circulating viruses from 1968 to the mid-1980s, to suggest the physical boundaries of sites A–E on H3 HA, and they compiled a directory of amino acids in each of antigenic sites A–E ()
[9]. This is the map we and others have been using but it important to stress that (i) most aspects of this map were not experimentally confirmed and (ii) we do not know if this map, which was developed based on 1968 and 1971 isolates, applies to currently circulating viruses. Certainly many of the amino acids on the Wiley and Wilson list appear to be important in antigenic drift when studied phylogenetically
[14] or experimentally
[15].
Some mutations in HA1 created new sites for attachment of oligosaccharide chains and since the beginning of the Hong-Kong pandemic period in 1968 the number of N-linked glycan attachment sites in HA1 has increased from three to eleven. Accumulation of oligosaccharide chains in antigenic sites has been suggested to contribute to immune evasion
[6],
[16]–
[18].
Antibodies directed against the head of the HA are the most abundant of the neutralizing antibodies after vaccination. X-ray structures of complexes of mAb Fabs bound to HA show how antibodies can block binding of the viral HA to sialic acid receptors on host cells
[19]–
[21]. Antibodies were shown to bind near the sialic acid binding site or somewhat distant but in an orientation where the Fc portion would obstruct binding to cellular receptors
[19],
[22]–
[24]. Monoclonal antibodies specific to the more conserved stem domain of H1N1, H3N2 and H5N1 viruses have been described in recent studies
[25]–
[29]. These antibodies have broad neutralizing activity between viral subtypes and apparently act by blocking the conformational change that leads to fusion
[27]. The broadly neutralizing antibodies that bind to the stem region have not been detected as a significant component of the antibody repertoire but they were found to be induced by a “headless” construct
[30]. At this time vaccine production is still re-tooled annually according to new antigenic variants that are altered in the traditional neutralizing antigenic sites in the receptor binding domain of HA1.
Antibodies with flat binding surfaces cannot penetrate the receptor binding site of HA
[31] but they can sterically block receptor attachment by binding to epitopes on the loops surrounding the sialic acid binding site
[12],
[13]. The problem is that mutations in these loops can abrogate antibody binding without affecting HA function. One crystal structure shows an anti-H1 antibody in which the CDR3 loop is long enough to enter the receptor binding site, giving a degree of cross-reactive neutralization among seasonal H1N1 viruses
[21], but in most cases the virus can easily escape antibody neutralization.
The presence of five independent antigenic sites on HA would appear to mean that at least 5 amino acid sequence changes would be needed for a new antigenic variant to emerge. In the early years of H3N2 circulation, this appeared to be the case
[13] but in recent years the changes that necessitate a change in vaccine strain have been fewer in number. The host immune response may be limited to only the most immunodominant antigenic sites of HA.
Early studies of antigenic sites on HA of A/Memphis/1/71 suggested that antigenic site A was immunodominant
[32]. In this study only variants changed in antigenic site A were discriminated by polyclonal antiserum. However, a rabbit was immunized with a mAb-selected escape mutant of A/Memphis1/71 that had the change G144D in HA1 and the serum was absorbed with wild type virus so that only antibodies against the new epitope would remain. There were not any; the changed epitope was not immunogenic, indicating a change in immunodominance. Studies by Temoltzin-Palacios and Thomas
[33],
[34] showed that the neutralizing Ab response of CBA/Ca mice is focused on a few regions of the HA1 subunit after intranasal infection with A/Aichi/2/68 X-31 virus. Sequence analyses of variant viruses isolated after a second infection of mice showed that 60% of analyzed viral HAs had a G158E mutation and 17% contained a D61N mutation. It was concluded that antigenic sites B and E are immunodominant in mice infected with the X-31 virus. Six polyclonal human plasma samples collected in 1976 with hemagglutinin-inhibition activity against Aichi/68 showed decreased binding to mutants in antigenic site A
[35] which correlates with the data obtained with mouse mAbs specific to site A discussed above. A computational study suggested that site A was immunodominant in 1968–1971 and 1989–1995 while site B was dominant in 1972–1987 and 1996–2003
[36]. Studies with human sera have given mixed results of clear immunodominance of site A in 1991
[37] and part of site B in 1998–99 sera
[15] but no clear dominance was seen in a study of sera collected in 2004
[38].
Overall, the phylogenetic analyses
[14],
[39] and serum studies
[15],
[37] suggest that sites A and B are the most important in directing antigenic drift of H3N2 human viruses, and so we have investigated the immunogenicity of antigenic sites A and B of recent H3 HAs. We mapped the binding of two human monoclonal antibodies to wild type A/Oklahoma/309 HA and mutant HAs derived from it, and we tested the reactivity of polyclonal antibodies in human plasma samples after seasonal vaccination in 2006 (H3N2 2006–07 component A/Wisconsin/67/05) and/or after vaccination in 2008 (H3N2 2008–09 component A/Uruguay/716/2007), to wild type HA and mutants in antigenic sites A and B. Our results indicate that most neutralizing antibodies in human plasma against both vaccine strains A/Wisconsin/67/05 and A/Uruguay/716/07 are directed to antigenic site B. We conclude that antigenic site B is immunodominant over site A in recently circulating H3N2 viruses and that site B mutations may drive the next antigenic drift.