The cow udder is a potential coinfection site for influenza A viruses

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Here, Pinto and colleagues set out to investigate whether the cow udder is a potential mixing site for the influenza virus. The authors have demonstrated that bovine mammary epithelial cells can be infected with both avian and human influenza A viruses, supporting the idea that the cow udder may be a potential site for reassortment. Furthermore, they demonstrate that the bovine-adapted IAV replicates to similar titers in avian epithelial cells when compared to an AIV precursor virus. Thus, suggesting there is no fitness trade-off, and confirms the potential for spill-back of the cattle B3.13 into poultry, which has already been observed. Overall, I believe the authors achieved their aims. However, there are instances in which the results do not entirely support the conclusions (noted in weaknesses). Given the ongoing questions surrounding highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus in dairy cows, this work provides valuable evidence for the potential of the cow udder as a site of reassortment. These findings highlight the need for surveillance of influenza A virus incursions into livestock species, particularly cows. Some specific strengths and questions regarding weaknesses have been outlined below.

Strengths:

(1) The authors use a diverse range of cell types and influenza A virus strains, as well as a wide range of techniques to address the questions at hand.

(2) The use of cells from multiple bovine breeds for the MAC-T, bMEC and explants suggests the phenomenon is not unique to a single breed.

(3) The results suggesting there is no fitness trade-off for Cattle Texas in an avian host are interesting, and confirm the potential for spill-back of the cattle B3.13 into poultry, which has been observed.

Weaknesses:

I have listed my complete questions/concerns below. However, there are two main weaknesses of the article in its current state. Firstly, there is no apples-to-apples comparison in terms of determining a preference for IAV to infect the cow udder over other organs (Q4). The mammary gland and respiratory tract are represented by epithelial cells, but for other organs, fibroblasts were chosen. I think the fairer comparison would be to compare epithelial cells from different organs to demonstrate a preference for the mammary gland. Secondly, the main premise of the article relies on bMEC and MAC-T (primary and immortalised mammary epithelial cells), facilitating higher viral growth than the cells from other organs. Yet throughout the article, a 10x higher dose of IAV is used in the bMEC cells compared to everything else (Q6). This raises the question of how much of the results are due to a preference for the mammary epithelial cells, and how much is simply due to the increased dose.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors use a library of influenza A viruses from different strains, classified in lab-adapted, human, avian, and swine according to the animal from which they were isolated. They propose that the cow mammary gland serves as a mixing vessel for influenza A viruses. As a first approach, the authors assess susceptibility to infection across different cell types, including continuous and primary cell lines, bovine mammary cells, and mammary explants. All these cells support polymerase activity. Then, they analyzed changes in the bovine virus's viral fitness relative to an avian precursor. The authors use single-gene replacement to study whether and which RNP segments improve viral transcription. As part of this section, they also test IFN-specific antagonism by NS1 to assess the input of segment 8. Quantitative glycomic analysis was performed on the continuous bovine mammary cell line to demonstrate the presence of both a2,3 and a2,6, which is consistent with their observation that these cells can be co-infected with human and avian IAVs simultaneously. The main question, however, is: what is the glycome in the explants, or directly from tissues?

Overall, the manuscript is clearly written and provides new insights into the behaviour of the cattle isolate, now compared with a representative group of model or precursor HAs of different origins.

It would be great if a consistent nomenclature for the IAV strains could be used in the study. There is a mix of origin (Texas), animal from which the virus was isolated (mallard), or abbreviations that do not follow guidelines (IAV07). Are the USSR and Udorn not lab-adapted?

The experimental setup includes bovine mammary primary and continuous cells, as well as mammary explants. Some of the most significant differences, for example, in viral fitness studies and co-infection experiments, are observed in these explants. Perhaps there could be some additional focus on this observation. The implications in comparison to the results obtained in cultured cells could be described. How will the human and other HA subtype viruses fare in the explants?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This excellent manuscript by Pinto, Sharp, and colleagues examines bovine tissue tropism for influenza viruses. They find that bovine flu, as well as other strains, has strong replication in mammary tissue. They also map the genetic changes to influenza that improve replication in bovine cells. Overall, the study is well designed and executed, and the results are very timely.

Strengths:

(1) The experiments are well-controlled.

(2) The figures are well-constructed and easy to follow.

(3) The Methods and legends are detailed, with sufficient information.

Weaknesses:

(1) A comparison to human cells would strengthen the overall impact of the results. Are human mammary cells also uniquely susceptible to influenza? Are bovine mammary cells special in some way?

(2) For the virus infection studies with segment 8 swaps, it should at least be noted that some of the phenotypes could be driven by NEP.

(3) The data demonstrating that bMEC can support co-infection are compelling and important, but would be strengthened with a comparison from a different cell type or species. Do mammary cells uniquely support higher co-infection?

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Here, Pinto and colleagues set out to investigate whether the cow udder is a potential mixing site for the influenza virus. The authors have demonstrated that bovine mammary epithelial cells can be infected with both avian and human influenza A viruses, supporting the idea that the cow udder may be a potential site for reassortment. Furthermore, they demonstrate that the bovine-adapted IAV replicates to similar titers in avian epithelial cells when compared to an AIV precursor virus. Thus, suggesting there is no fitness trade-off, and confirms the potential for spill-back of the cattle B3.13 into poultry, which has already been observed. Overall, I believe the authors achieved their aims. However, there are instances in which the results do not entirely support the conclusions (noted in weaknesses). Given the ongoing questions surrounding highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus in dairy cows, this work provides valuable evidence for the potential of the cow udder as a site of reassortment. These findings highlight the need for surveillance of influenza A virus incursions into livestock species, particularly cows. Some specific strengths and questions regarding weaknesses have been outlined below.

Strengths:

(1) The authors use a diverse range of cell types and influenza A virus strains, as well as a wide range of techniques to address the questions at hand.

(2) The use of cells from multiple bovine breeds for the MAC-T, bMEC and explants suggests the phenomenon is not unique to a single breed.

(3) The results suggesting there is no fitness trade-off for Cattle Texas in an avian host are interesting, and confirm the potential for spill-back of the cattle B3.13 into poultry, which has been observed.

Weaknesses:

I have listed my complete questions/concerns below. However, there are two main weaknesses of the article in its current state. Firstly, there is no apples-to-apples comparison in terms of determining a preference for IAV to infect the cow udder over other organs (Q4). The mammary gland and respiratory tract are represented by epithelial cells, but for other organs, fibroblasts were chosen. I think the fairer comparison would be to compare epithelial cells from different organs to demonstrate a preference for the mammary gland. Secondly, the main premise of the article relies on bMEC and MAC-T (primary and immortalised mammary epithelial cells), facilitating higher viral growth than the cells from other organs. Yet throughout the article, a 10x higher dose of IAV is used in the bMEC cells compared to everything else (Q6). This raises the question of how much of the results are due to a preference for the mammary epithelial cells, and how much is simply due to the increased dose.

When we set out to test if cow mammary gland cells were particularly susceptible to IAV infection compared to other bovine cell types, we used what was available in the Roslin Institute in the first instance – a mix of primary and continuous cells from various anatomical sites: three epithelial cell types (two mammary, one respiratory tract) two immune cell types and four sets of fibroblasts from various organs. Given the representation of different anatomical sites, cell types and differentiation statuses, we considered this a suitably diverse panel with which to characterise infection dynamics of a broad range of IAVs, before more focussed investigations using the mammary bMEC and explant tissues. Both mammary epithelial cell types grew our library of influenza challenge strains significantly better than the BAT-II respiratory epithelial cells, as well as the two immune cell types and all four fibroblast populations. Of the fibroblast cells, those derived from the brain grew IAV significantly better than the skin and turbinate fibroblasts, while blood-derived macrophages grew virus significantly better than the lymphocytes and non-brain fibroblasts. Therefore, there are “apple to apple” comparisons as well as apple to pear comparisons that give significant differences. We therefore think that our conclusions (in the abstract) that mammary cells are particularly replication competent for IAV, (at the end of the introduction) that “a wide range of cow-derived cells are susceptible” and that (in the results section) that “mammary cells showed the highest susceptibility” are entirely justifiable. We do not claim that mammary cells are the only permissive bovine cells, but our evidence suggests they are highly susceptible.

We used a higher MOI for bMECs because test experiments with WT PR8 and the Cattle Texas 6:2 reassortant showed that MOI 0.01 infections gave more variable results than ones run at MOI 0.1, perhaps because of the intrinsic variability of mixed primary cell populations. We therefore chose to go with the higher MOI. However, the end-point titres between the two conditions were not significantly different, so we do not think this choice is a confounding issue. We will add the comparison of the two MOIs as a supplementary figure in the formal revision.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors use a library of influenza A viruses from different strains, classified in lab-adapted, human, avian, and swine according to the animal from which they were isolated. They propose that the cow mammary gland serves as a mixing vessel for influenza A viruses. As a first approach, the authors assess susceptibility to infection across different cell types, including continuous and primary cell lines, bovine mammary cells, and mammary explants. All these cells support polymerase activity. Then, they analyzed changes in the bovine virus's viral fitness relative to an avian precursor. The authors use single-gene replacement to study whether and which RNP segments improve viral transcription. As part of this section, they also test IFN-specific antagonism by NS1 to assess the input of segment 8. Quantitative glycomic analysis was performed on the continuous bovine mammary cell line to demonstrate the presence of both a2,3 and a2,6, which is consistent with their observation that these cells can be co-infected with human and avian IAVs simultaneously. The main question, however, is: what is the glycome in the explants, or directly from tissues?

We report quantitative glycomics for the primary bovine mammary epithelial cells as well as the continuous line the referee highlights. However, we agree with R2 that a detailed glycomic analysis of primary bovine mammary tissue would allow a better understanding of the actual glycosylation status in vivo. This has now been undertaken by the authors and is available as a bioRxiv preprint:

Bovine H5N1 influenza viruses have adapted to more efficiently use receptors abundant in cattle

Jack A. Hassard, Jiayun Yang, Bernadeta Dadonaite, Jonathan E.Pekar, Jin Yu, Samuel A. S. Richardson, Rute M. Pinto, Kristel Ramirez Valdez, Philippe Lemey, Jessica L. Quantrill, JinghanXue, Tereza Masonou, Katie-Marie Case, Jila Ajeian, Maximillian N. J. Woodall, Rebecca A. Ross, Nicolas Hudson, Kan Zhong, Hongzhi Cao, Samuel Jones, Hannah J. Klim, Brian R. Wasik, Desi N. Dermawan, Jean-Remy Sadeyen, Dirk Werling, DylanYaffy, Joe James, Alessandro Nunez, Paul Digard, Ian H. Brown, Daniel H. Goldhill, Pablo R. Murcia, Claire M. Smith, Yan Liu, Jesse D. Bloom, Munir Iqbal, Wendy S. Barclay, Stuart M.Haslam, Thomas P. Peacock: bioRxiv 2026.04.02.715584; doi:https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.04.02.715584

Overall, the manuscript is clearly written and provides new insights into the behaviour of the cattle isolate, now compared with a representative group of model or precursor HAs of different origins.

It would be great if a consistent nomenclature for the IAV strains could be used in the study. There is a mix of origin (Texas), animal from which the virus was isolated (mallard), or abbreviations that do not follow guidelines (IAV07). Are the USSR and Udorn not lab-adapted?

We chose the abbreviated names for a variety of reasons. Partly from common usage (e.g. PR8, Udorn), partly for consistency with other already published papers from the FluTrailMap consortia (e.g. Cattle Texas; Dholakia et al 2026), partly to make diversity obvious in certain figures (e.g. H3N1, H5N2 etc) and partly to avoid confusion between viruses that originate from the same geographic area (e.g. AIV07, AIV09, H5N8-20 etc which are all Ck/England/isolate numbers). Overall, we found it more confusing to use the expanded nomenclature. Re AIV07 which the referee criticises for not following naming guidelines – if this is a reference to the EURL nomenclature, AIV07 is the abbreviation for the specific virus A/Chicken/England/053052/2021, our representative virus for EURL genotype EA-2020-C, as we say in the text. We should however have included this nomenclature in Table 1, which otherwise provides a cross-reference for all the names. This will be added in the formal revision to help with clarity.

As to whether USSR and Udorn are lab adapted – that depends on definitions. There is a continuum of adaptive changes and/or sequence drift starting from the very first growth of an isolate in the laboratory. The viruses we define here as lab adapted are ones that have been deliberately adapted to other hosts or which have very long passage histories in multiple host species resulting in known functionally significant changes. For example, PR8, with 100s of passages in mice, ferrets and embryonated hens eggs (doi: 10.3390/v12060590), makes it unarguably lab-adapted. We admit that A/USSR/77 and A/Udorn/307/1972 are probably further along this adaptive pathway than more recent isolates such as A/Norway/3433/2018, but are unaware of any specific reason that would put them into our lab adapted category.

The experimental setup includes bovine mammary primary and continuous cells, as well as mammary explants. Some of the most significant differences, for example, in viral fitness studies and co-infection experiments, are observed in these explants. Perhaps there could be some additional focus on this observation. The implications in comparison to the results obtained in cultured cells could be described. How will the human and other HA subtype viruses fare in the explants?

We agree that this is an important and interesting question, and have tested the strains we used for co-infections, human seasonal H1N1 “Norway” and low pathogenic avian influenza “H3N1”, in the mammary explants. Both replicate, the avian virus to 20-fold higher titres. We will add this new information to the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This excellent manuscript by Pinto, Sharp, and colleagues examines bovine tissue tropism for influenza viruses. They find that bovine flu, as well as other strains, has strong replication in mammary tissue. They also map the genetic changes to influenza that improve replication in bovine cells. Overall, the study is well designed and executed, and the results are very timely.

Strengths:

(1) The experiments are well-controlled.

(2) The figures are well-constructed and easy to follow.

(3) The Methods and legends are detailed, with sufficient information.

Weaknesses:

(1) A comparison to human cells would strengthen the overall impact of the results. Are human mammary cells also uniquely susceptible to influenza? Are bovine mammary cells special in some way?

This is an interesting question but we have not tested mammary gland cells from humans (or any other species of mammal), but we have reported elsewhere (Dholakia et al., Nat Commun. 2026 Jan 16;17(1):1603. doi: 10.1038/s41467-026-68306-6.) that Cattle Texas grows well in a variety of human respiratory cells. Here we are considering the bovine mammary organ as a potential reassortment site for IAVs; human mammary organs are unlikely to create this opportunity.

(2) For the virus infection studies with segment 8 swaps, it should at least be noted that some of the phenotypes could be driven by NEP.

We agree, and will change the text to acknowledge this in a revised version.

(3) The data demonstrating that bMEC can support co-infection are compelling and important, but would be strengthened with a comparison from a different cell type or species. Do mammary cells uniquely support higher co-infection?

We have data showing that co-infection also occurs in the continuous MAC-T udder cell line and will include these data in a revision. We have not tested bovine cells from other organs for co-infection potential as they do not seem to be significant sites of infection in vivo.