Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 23;21(3):e0335324. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335324

Internal gene segments from a mouse-adapted influenza B virus confer increased pathogenicity to mice

Arne Matthys 1,2, Laura Amelinck 1,2, Anouk Smet 1,2, Tine Ysenbaert 1,2, Thorsten U Vogel 3, Xavier Saelens 1,2, João Paulo Portela Catani 1,2,*
Editor: Victor C Huber4
PMCID: PMC13008076  PMID: 41871085

Abstract

Influenza B viruses (IBVs) contribute significantly to the annual influenza epidemics in human. Most IBV strains are non- or poorly pathogenic in mice, which are frequently used for vaccine studies. We describe the generation of a mouse-adapted IBV strain that retains pathogenicity in mice when carrying hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) gene segments from a heterologous IBV strain. Serial passage of an influenza B reassortant virus, containing the HA and NA segments from B/Washington/02/2019 on a mouse-adapted B/Memphis/12/1997 backbone, resulted in the selection of an IBV that was highly pathogenic for mice. This mouse-adapted IBV strain had acquired non-synonymous mutations in 5 gene segments. Sequence analysis of the intermediate passages indicated that mutations in the matrix (M), polymerase acidic (PA), and polymerase basic 1 (PB1) gene segments appeared at passages 9 and 13, suggesting that these mutations contributed to the pathogenicity in mice. Mouse challenge studies with rescued reassortant viruses with one or multiple mutated gene segments, confirmed the importance of substitutions in the M and PA segments for pathogenicity. Using the novel mouse-adapted IBV backbone, we rescued reassortant viruses containing the HA and NA segments of B/Austria/1359417/2021 and demonstrated its increased pathogenicity in BALB/c mice compared to IBV rescued on the parental strain. This mouse-adapted IBV backbone provides a valuable tool for the study of IBV in mice.

Introduction

Influenza B viruses (IBVs) are human respiratory pathogens that cause a significant yearly recurrent disease burden [1]. IBVs diverged in the 1980s into two antigenically distinct lineages, named the B/Victoria/2/1987-like and B/Yamagata/16/1988-like lineage, herein referred as Victoria and Yamagata lineage, respectively. These lineages have been co-circulating with alternating predominance [2]. Since 2020, however, Yamagata lineage IBVs have not been detected. Given that IBVs lack an established animal reservoir, the continued absence of detectable Yamagata lineage viruses suggests their extinction [3,4].

The segmented, negative-sense RNA genome of IBVs is replicated by the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that lacks proofreading activity, contributing to the genetic variability. Nucleotide substitutions occur in all gene segments and are generally higher for Victoria compared to Yamagata lineage viruses [5]. With 2 × 10 ⁻ ³ substitutions/site/year, the IBV hemagglutinin (HA) gene mutates slower than the HA of human H1N1 (4 × 10 ⁻ ³ substitutions/site/year) and H3N2 (5.5 × 10 ⁻ ³ substitutions/site/year) influenza A viruses [6]. Despite the slightly lower substitution rate, antigenic drift in IBV necessitated frequent updates of the recommended vaccine strains (e.g., 6 distinct Victoria or Yamagata strains were recommended in the last 10 years) [7].

IBVs are poorly pathogenic to mice, limiting the use of this small animal model for IBV research. Serial passage of IBV through mouse lungs is a well-established method to select a pathogenic virus. IBV adaptation to mice has been associated with amino acid substitutions across all eight viral gene segments [811]. Identification of the acquired mutations, combined with reverse genetics, allows determination of the substitutions that are necessary and sufficient for the mouse-adapted phenotype. Mouse-adapted IBVs have been used to define pathogenic determinants and were exploited for the generation of live attenuated influenza vaccines candidates [12], to study the antibody repertoire and antigenic drift [13], or for drug susceptibility testing [14].

In this study, we report the serial passage of an IBV through mice that resulted in the establishment of a backbone of internal segments that conferred increased mice pathogenicity of IBV reassortants.

Results

The HA and neuraminidase (NA) segments of B/Washington/02/2019 were used to rescue a 2:6 reassortant virus using the internal segments obtained from the mouse-adapted B/Memphis/12/1997. This initial backbone includes the single substitution (N221S) in BM1, previously shown to confer increased pathogenicity to B/Memphis/12/1997 [11]. Sequence analysis revealed that the rescued reassortant IBV, which was named B/HwNw-Mem97, carried an additional T211A substitution in the HA and M390I in the NA segment. Despite encoding the N221S substitution in the C-terminus of BM1, previously described to enhance mouse virulence, the B/HwNw-Mem97 reassortant virus was not pathogenic to BALB/c mice (Fig 1a). Similarly, B/HwNw-Mem97 was not pathogenic to DBA/2J mice, a mouse strain characterized by increased sensitivity to influenza virus infection (Fig 1b) [15,16].

Fig 1. Weight loss induced by B/HwNw-Mem97.

Fig 1

Different amounts of the 2:6 B/HwNw-Mem97 reassortant with N221S substitution in the C-terminus of BM1 were used to inoculate groups of four BALB/c (a) or DBA/2J mice (b). Data points represent the mean relative body weight and error bars the standard error of the mean. The experiment was performed using 4 mice per group.

To isolate an IBV strain with enhanced pathogenicity, the B/HwNw-Mem97 virus was passaged multiple times through the lungs of DBA/2J mice and propagated on MDCK cells between each in vivo passage. After 13 passages, the infected mice showed clinical signs of disease (ruffled fur and reduced mobility). The virus that was obtained after passage 13, referred to as the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus, was amplified on MDCK cells and titrated in BALB/c and DBA/2J mice. The resulting 50% lethal dose (LD50) were 810 PFU for BALB/c and 25 PFU for DBA/2J mice (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Survival of mice inoculated with of B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus.

Fig 2

BALB/c (a) and DBA/2J mice (b) were inoculated with different doses of B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus (obtained after thirteen serial passages in DBA/2J mice). The experiment was performed using 4 mice per group and the LD50 was calculated using the Reed and Muench method.

To identify the mutations associated with increased pathogenicity, the complete B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. genome was sequenced. Three synonymous mutations were identified, one in the PB2, one in the PB1, and one in the BM1 segment. In addition, a total of eight non-synonymous mutations were found across PB2, PB1, PA, NA, and BM1 gene segments (Fig 3a, Table 1). To understand the evolutionary trajectory of each mutation, the segments of intermediate viral passages 3, 6, and 9 were subcloned in the pHW2000 vector and sequenced (Fig 3b, Table 1).

Fig 3. Multi-segment mouse-adaptation of the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus.

Fig 3

a) Eight gene segments code for at least 11 IBV proteins. Nucleotide substitutions in IBV after 13 in vivo passages are mapped per segment with yellow or red stars for non-synonymous and synonymous mutations, respectively. b) Appearance of mutations resulting in amino acid substitutions present in the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus, through the tested passages.

Table 1. Mutations present in the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. genome relative to the parental rescued virus. Mutations were identified in intermediate passages (P3, P6, or P9) with Sanger sequencing and in the mouse adapted virus (P13) with NGS and Sanger sequencing.

Passage Viral segment (protein)1 Nucleotide change (codon)2 Amino acid change4,5
P3 6 (NA/NB) 1170 (ATA to ATG) 390 (I to M)
P6 1 (PB2) 1929 (TTG to TTA)
2171 (AAG to AGG) 719 (K to R)
6 (NA/NB) 481 (GGA to AGA) 148 (G to R)
1170 (ATA to ATG) 390 (I to M)
2 (PB1) 1952 (ACC to GCC) 645 (T to A)
2134 (AGG to AGA)
P9 6 (NA/NB) 961 (GAG to AAG)3

1170 (ATA to ATG)

1345 (GAG to AGA)3

1474 (TGT to TAT)3
308 (E to K)

390 (I to M)

436 (E to K)

7 (BM1/BM2) 411 (TAC to TAT)
421 (GGA to AGA) 136 (G to R)
P13 (m.a.) 1 (PB2) 937 (ATA to CTA)

1938 (TTG to TTA)

2180 (A to G)
303 (I to L)



719 (K to R)
2 (PB1) 1952 (ACC to GCC) 645 (T to A)
2134 (AGG to AGA)
3 (PA) 1135 (GTA to ATA)

1465 (AAA to GAA)
379 (V to I)

489 (K to E)
6 (NA/NB) 481 (GGA to AGA)

1170 (ATA to ATG)
148 (G to R)

390 (I to M)
7 (BM1/BM2) 411 (TAC to TAT)

421 (GGA to AGA)


136 (G to R)

1Segments 1 (PB2), 3 (PA), 5 (NP), and 8 (NS1/NS2) were not analysed for passage 9.

2Nucleotide numbering relative to the reference genome (see Materials and Methods).

3Mutation detected in at least 50% of the sequenced samples.

4“-“ indicates synonymous mutation

5Amino acid numbering relative to reference proteins (see Materials and Methods).

Reassortant viruses were rescued using combinations of segments from B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus to investigate the individual contributions of each segment to the pathogenicity. These reassortants consisted of combinations of segments derived from the parental B/HwNw-Mem97- and the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus (Fig 4a). Despite multiple attempts, we were unable to rescue B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. by reverse genetics. We inoculated BALB/c mice with an equal amount of the different reassortant viruses (1620 PFU/mouse, which corresponds to 2 LD50 of B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a.) and monitored morbidity and mortality for 14 days (Fig 4b). All mutated segments except PB2, or the combination of PB2 and PB1, contributed significantly to morbidity. Mortality was only significantly affected by the combination of mutated segments PB1 and PA, or NA and M. PA and M segments derived from B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. were predominantly and independently associated with increased mortality. Infection of BALB/c mice with reverse genetics B/HwNw-Mem97 viruses with PB2 segment or with PB2 and PB1 segments derived from B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a., resulted in limited body weight loss (Fig 4b).

Fig 4. Morbidity and mortality in BALB/c mice challenged with different B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. reassortant viruses.

Fig 4

a) Genomic composition of the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. (m.a.) and rescued reverse genetics (RG) IBV viruses. Note that the sequences of the HA, NP, and NS segments of B/HwNw-Mem97 and B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. are identical. b) Bodyweight (left) and survival curves (right) of BALB/c mice over time following challenge with 1620 PFU/mouse. Differences in bodyweight between groups (compared to the WT group, shown only in the first graph) were tested by two-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparison: **p = 0.0021, ***P < 0.0002, ****P < 0.0001. Differences in survival (compared to the WT group) were tested with a log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test: **p = 0.0021, ***p < 0.0002, ****p < 0.0001. The graphs show compiled data from two independent experiments (n = 4 mice per group per experiment). The dotted lines in the bodyweight graphs indicate the ethical maximum permitted bodyweight reduction.

To assess whether the 6 internal gene segments of B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. could confer pathogenicity in mice when combined with HA and NA from another IBV, we rescued recombinant viruses carrying the HA and NA gene segments from B/Austria/1359417/2021 and either the six internal segments from B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. or from B/Memphis/12/1997 m.a. (with the BM1 N221S substitution; [11]). BALB/c mice were inoculated with 450 PFUs of each reassortant. Although mice in both groups experienced body weight loss and mortality, the reassortant virus bearing the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. internal genes induced significantly greater weight loss. The mortality outcome did not differ significantly (Fig 5).

Fig 5. The internal gene segments of B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. confer increased pathogenicity of RG B/Austria/1359417/2021 virus to BALB/c mice.

Fig 5

Bodyweight and survival curves of female BALB/c mice over time following challenge with 450 PFU/mouse (n = 4 per group). Differences in bodyweight between groups were tested by two-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparison: ****p < 0.0001. Differences in survival were tested with a log-rank (Mantel-Cox). The dotted lines in the bodyweight graphs indicate the ethical maximum permitted bodyweight reduction.

Discussion

Aiming to generate an IBV challenge model bearing the HA and NA components of the B/Washington/02/2019 virus, we rescued a 2:6 reassortant strain, which we named B/HwNw-Mem97, with the internal segments of the mouse adapted B/Memphis/12/1997 [11]. The rescued RG B/HwNw-Mem97 was not pathogenic in BALB/c and DBA/2J mice. To generate a pathogenic strain, 13 serial passages were performed in lungs of DBA/2J mice, which are more susceptible to influenza A virus infection than BALB/cByJ mice [17]. This increased susceptibility may explain the difference in LD50 of the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus in DBA/2J mice (25 PFU) compared to BALB/c mice (810 PFU). The resulting mouse adapted IBV, named B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a., had acquired non-synonymous mutations in the PB2, PB1, PA, NA and BM. Among these, the substitutions in the M and PA segments played a predominant role in increasing mice pathogenicity.

A substitution at the C-terminus of the M segment (N221S) has previously been described as a determinant of IBV mouse pathogenicity [11]. Although this substitution was present in our rescued B/HwNw-Mem97 virus, this virus did not cause detectable morbidity in mice. After 9 serial passages, the substitution G136R was identified in the M segment and was found to correlate with increased mouse pathogenicity. Substitutions in the M segment have also been linked to increased pathogenicity in mice of influenza A viruses, however the mechanism remains unclear and may involve altered vRNP binding [18].

In the PA segment, a single substitution (K338R) has been reported to enhance pathogenicity in mice by approximately 10-fold across both IBV lineages, and this effect was associated with increased replicase activity [10]. However, pathogenicity still required relatively high viral doses (LD50 of 103.5 PFU and 105.5 PFU for B/Victoria- and B/Yamagata-lineage viruses, respectively). The B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. PA bears two substitutions (V379I and K489E). Interestingly, high-yielding egg-adapted IBV backbones were recently described and include the PA substitution K489E [19].

Adaptation of influenza viruses to mice can result in substitutions in HA and NA, which may be undesirable when studying immune responses targeting these antigens. For example, seventeen serial passages in mice of a B/Victoria clade 1A virus (B/Novosibirsk/40/2017) resulted in substitutions in HA (T214I) and NA (D432N) [9]. Seventeen passages of B/Florida/04/2006 resulted in 5 amino acid changes, of which one in HA (D424G) [20].

The B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus as reported here carries the HA substitution T211A and NA substitutions G148R and I390M. Notable, the T211A in HA and M390I in NA were present in the rescued parental strain (P0), and consequently occurred independently of the mouse adaptation. The methionine at position 390 in NA is highly conserved among IBVs. Although the rescued B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. initially carried this M390I substitution, it was reverted back to a methionine (I390M) after, at the most, three passages. Thus, given that the NA segment at least partially contributed to pathogenicity in mice, it is likely that the G148R substitution in NA is associated with increased pathogenicity. Typically, position 148 in NA features a glycine in Victoria lineage viruses or a glutamic acid in Yamagata lineage viruses. Neighbouring residues (especially D149) are critical components of the catalytic site, directly participating in sialic acid receptor binding [21]. Substitution G148R may introduce local allosteric changes with a limited contribution to viral pathogenicity, since reassortant viruses with the parental NA segment were also pathogenic in mice.

The rescue of the 2:6 B/Austria/1359417/2021 reassortant on our B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. backbone resulted in a virus with increased pathogenicity in comparison to its counterpart rescued on the B/Memphis/12/1997 mouse adapted backbone. No substitutions were found in the HA or NA derived from B/Austria/1359417/2021 in the reassortant virus, indicating that mouse pathogenicity relied solely on the m.a. internal segments, allowing the study in mice of IBV viruses with potentially unaltered antigenicity.

Our study has limitations. First, although we identified new key substitutions in the PA and M segments, the precise molecular mechanism underlying the increased pathogenicity remains to be investigated. Second, we did not assess the cytokine profile or lung histopathology, important parameters to understand the mechanism linked to disease severity [2224].

In summary, we isolated an IBV backbone carrying non-synonymous substitution in 5 gene segments (PB2, PB1, PA, NA, and M). Except for PB2, all the mutated segments seem to, at least partially, contribute to increased mice pathogenicity. The m.a. backbone was successfully used to rescue a second virus comprising HA and NA of the recent B/Austria/1359417/2021 vaccine strain. The described backbone offers a new platform to rescue IBV strains that are pathogenic in mice, without altering their surface antigenicity.

Materials and methods

Virus rescue

HA and NA sequences from B/Washington/02/2019 (GISAID accession numbers EPI1368874 and EPI1368872, respectively) and B/Austria/13595417/2021 (GISAID accession numbers EPI1845793 and EPI1845794, respectively) were generated by custom gene synthesis (GeneArt, Thermo Fischer) and cloned in the bidirectional expression plasmid pHW2000. The gene segments from the mouse adapted B/Memphis/12/1997 [11] were reverse transcribed from the virus stock, using the primers described previously [25] and cloned in the pHW2000 expression vector. To rescue reassortant viruses, a co-culture of MDCK and HEK293 cells was transfected with 1 μg of plasmids encoding HA and NA of B/Washington/02/2019, and the 6 plasmids (PB2, PB1, PA, NP M, and NS) encoding internal proteins of the mouse adapted B/Memphis/12/1997. The rescue using all 8 parental B/Memphis/12/97 segments was used as positive control, and the negative control consisted of the same plasmids, except for the one encoding NP. The supernatant (SN) was recovered after observation of cytopathic effect and titrated (PFU determination). All rescued viruses were amplified on MDCK cells to prepare working stocks. Briefly, MDCK cells were inoculated with a MOI of 0.001 in the presence of TPCK-treated trypsin (2 μg/mL, Sigma T1426). After cytopathic effect was evident, the cell culture supernatant was recovered, cleared from cells and debris by centrifugation, and titrated by plaque assay on MDCK cells (PFU determination).

Mouse adaptations

The initial viral infection was performed with 1 x 105 PFU (50 µL per nostril). During each passage, groups of 3 DBA/2J mice were inoculated and euthanized 72 hr later to recover virus from the lungs. Lung homogenates were prepared in PBS using sterile metal beads and a Tissue Lyser II mechanical homogenizer. The homogenates were clarified by centrifugation at 1,000 × g for 10 minutes at 4°C, then pooled and diluted 1:1000 prior to inoculation of MDCK cells. Infected cells were maintained in the presence of 2 µg/mL TPCK-treated trypsin (Sigma-Aldrich, T1426) until observation of cytopathic effect. The cell culture medium was then recovered, cleared by centrifugation and used at 1/100 dilution to inoculate naive mice. These passages were repeated 13 times when clinical signs of influenza virus infection in mice (ruffled fur and reduced mobility) was observed on day 3 after inoculation.

Virus sequence analysis

The mouse-adapted and parental strains were sequenced using Oxford nanopore at PathoSense (Belgium). The internal genes of intermediate passages were reverse transcribed using the primers described by [26], and the amplified segments were cloned into the bidirectional plasmid pHW2000 and sequenced by Sanger sequencing (IDT Belgium). Nucleotide substitutions are numbered relative to the B/Washington/02/2019 reference genome retrieved from the NCBI viral genomes resource database [27] with the following accession codes for HA (MK676294) and NA (MK676296). Nucleotide substitutions in the internal gene segments are numbered relative to the B/Memphis/12/1997 reference genome with following accession codes for PB1 (AY260942), PB2 (AY260943), PA (AY260944), NP (AY260946), M (AY260941), and NS (AY260948).

Mouse housing and viral challenge

Specific pathogen-free female BALB/c and DBA/2J mice were obtained from Janvier (France). The animals were housed in a temperature-controlled environment with 12 h light/dark cycles; food and water were provided ad libitum. The animal facility operates under the Flemish Government License Number LA1400563. All experiments were done under conditions specified by law and authorized by the Institutional Ethical Committee on Experimental Animals (Ethical Application EC2023−120 and EC2023−140). Intranasal administration of virus dilution (50 µL per nostril) was performed under isoflurane sedation in a BSL2 graded facility. Mice were monitored daily for two weeks for weight loss and clinical signs of disease, including inactivity, ruffled fur, labored breathing, and huddling behavior. Animals that lost more than 25% of their original body weight or exhibited reduced mobility or distress associated with labored breathing (indicative of pneumonia) were euthanized immediately by cervical dislocation. No spontaneous deaths were observed. Researchers responsible for the mouse experiments were certified in accordance with the Belgian Royal Decree of 29 May 2013. The LD₅₀ was calculated using the Reed and Muench method [28].

Data Availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are included within the paper.

Funding Statement

A.M. was supported by a Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO) PhD fellowship strategic basic research (1S93223N). This work was also supported by Sanofi. No additional external funding was received for this study. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors. T.U.V., but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Zaraket H, Hurt AC, Clinch B, Barr I, Lee N. Burden of influenza B virus infection and considerations for clinical management. Antiviral Res. 2021;185:104970. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ambrose CS, Levin MJ. The rationale for quadrivalent influenza vaccines. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2012;8(1):81–8. doi: 10.4161/hv.8.1.17623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Caini S, Meijer A, Nunes MC, Henaff L, Zounon M, Boudewijns B, et al. Probable extinction of influenza B/Yamagata and its public health implications: a systematic literature review and assessment of global surveillance databases. Lancet Microbe. 2024;5(8):100851. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(24)00066-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Koutsakos M, Rockman S, Krammer F. Is eradication of influenza B viruses possible? Lancet Infect Dis. 2024;24(5):451–3. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00132-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Virk RK, Jayakumar J, Mendenhall IH, Moorthy M, Lam P, Linster M, et al. Divergent evolutionary trajectories of influenza B viruses underlie their contemporaneous epidemic activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(1):619–28. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1916585116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vijaykrishna D, Holmes EC, Joseph U, Fourment M, Su YCF, Halpin R, et al. The contrasting phylodynamics of human influenza B viruses. Elife. 2015;4:e05055. doi: 10.7554/eLife.05055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.WHO. Recommendations for influenza vaccine composition. 2025.
  • 8.Pekarek MJ, Petro-Turnquist EM, Rubrum A, Webby RJ, Weaver EA. Expanding Mouse-Adapted Yamagata-like Influenza B Viruses in Eggs Enhances In Vivo Lethality in BALB/c Mice. Viruses. 2022;14(6):1299. doi: 10.3390/v14061299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Prokopyeva E, Kurskaya O, Sobolev I, Solomatina M, Murashkina T, Suvorova A, et al. Experimental Infection Using Mouse-Adapted Influenza B Virus in a Mouse Model. Viruses. 2020;12(4):470. doi: 10.3390/v12040470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bae J-Y, Lee I, Kim JI, Park S, Yoo K, Park M, et al. A Single Amino Acid in the Polymerase Acidic Protein Determines the Pathogenicity of Influenza B Viruses. J Virol. 2018;92(13):e00259-18. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00259-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McCullers JA, Hoffmann E, Huber VC, Nickerson AD. A single amino acid change in the C-terminal domain of the matrix protein M1 of influenza B virus confers mouse adaptation and virulence. Virology. 2005;336(2):318–26. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2005.03.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mo J, Cardenas-Garcia S, Santos JJS, Ferreri LM, Cáceres CJ, Geiger G, et al. Mutation E48K in PB1 Polymerase Subunit Improves Stability of a Candidate Live Attenuated Influenza B Virus Vaccine. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(7):800. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9070800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Portela Catani JP, Ysenbaert T, Smet A, Vuylsteke M, Vogel TU, Saelens X. Anti-neuraminidase and anti-hemagglutinin immune serum can confer inter-lineage cross protection against recent influenza B. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0280825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280825 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Matthys A, Felix J, Catani JPP, Roose K, Nerinckx W, Van Buyten B, et al. Single-domain antibodies directed against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase protect against influenza B viruses. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):5831. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-60232-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bergmann S, Brunotte L, Schughart K. Differential lung gene expression changes in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice carrying an identical functional Mx1 gene reveals crucial differences in the host response. BMC Genom Data. 2024;25(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Casanova T, Van de Paar E, Desmecht D, Garigliany M-M. Hyporeactivity of Alveolar Macrophages and Higher Respiratory Cell Permissivity Characterize DBA/2J Mice Infected by Influenza A Virus. Journal of Interferon & Cytokine Research. 2015;35(10):808–20. doi: 10.1089/jir.2014.0237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Srivastava B, Błazejewska P, Hessmann M, Bruder D, Geffers R, Mauel S, et al. Host genetic background strongly influences the response to influenza a virus infections. PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4857. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ward AC. Virulence of influenza A virus for mouse lung. Virus Genes. 1997;14(3):187–94. doi: 10.1023/a:1007979709403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Aslam S, Rajendran M, Kriti D, Kurland A, Johnson J, van Bakel H, et al. Generation of a high yield vaccine backbone for influenza B virus in embryonated chicken eggs. NPJ Vaccines. 2023;8(1):12. doi: 10.1038/s41541-023-00603-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kim EH, Park SJ, Kwon H lI, Kim SM, Kim Y Il, Song MS. Mouse adaptation of influenza B virus increases replication in the upper respiratory tract and results in droplet transmissibility in ferrets. Scientific Reports. 2015;5(1):1–14. doi: 10.1038/srep15580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Burmeister WP, Ruigrok RW, Cusack S. The 2.2 A resolution crystal structure of influenza B neuraminidase and its complex with sialic acid. EMBO J. 1992;11(1):49–56. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1992.tb05026.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Li H, Bradley KC, Long JS, Frise R, Ashcroft JW, Hartgroves LC, et al. Internal genes of a highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus determine high viral replication in myeloid cells and severe outcome of infection in mice. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(1):e1006821. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Teijaro JR, Walsh KB, Rice S, Rosen H, Oldstone MBA. Mapping the innate signaling cascade essential for cytokine storm during influenza virus infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(10):3799–804. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1400593111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gu Y, Zuo X, Zhang S, Ouyang Z, Jiang S, Wang F, et al. The Mechanism behind Influenza Virus Cytokine Storm. Viruses. 2021;13(7):1362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hoffmann E, Mahmood K, Yang CF, Webster RG, Greenberg HB, Kemble G. Rescue of influenza B virus from eight plasmids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2002;99(17):11411–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zhou B, Lin X, Wang W, Halpin RA, Bera J, Stockwell TB. Universal Influenza B Virus Genomic Amplification Facilitates Sequencing, Diagnostics, and Reverse Genetics. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(5):1330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bao Y, Bolotov P, Dernovoy D, Kiryutin B, Zaslavsky L, Tatusova T. The Influenza Virus Resource at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. J Virol. 2008;82(2):596–601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Reed LJ, Muench H. A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. Am J Epidemiol. 1938;27(3):493–7. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Victor Huber

9 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Portela Catani,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

During the revision process, please address all reviewer comments while paying close attention to those associated with experimental design and the inclusion/justification of appropriate controls.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 23 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Victor C Huber

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS One submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

[A.M. was supported by a FWO PhD fellowship strategic basic research (1S93223N). This work was also supported by Sanofi.].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please expand the acronym “FWO” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

[A.M. was supported by a FWO PhD fellowship strategic basic research (1S93223N). This work was also supported by Sanofi.].

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Sanofi.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[X.S. reports grants from Sanofi and T.U.V. may have stock options from Sanofi.].

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation and/or employed to the commercial funders of this research study: Sanofi.

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

8. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Matthys and colleagues developed a mouse-adapted IBV strain based on a previously published B/Memphis/12/1997 backbone. They assessed how acquisition of mutations in all viral segments contribute to enhanced pathogenicity in mice, and rescued an reassortant IBV strain which contained the most recent B/Austria/2021 HA and NA.

Given the low pathogenicity of IBV strains in mice in general, this is a useful tool which can be used to study IBV pathogenesis in vivo.

I have a few minor comments which I hope will improve the quality of the manuscript:

- Line 33: add complete lineage names, e.g. B/Victoria/2/1987-like (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988-like

- Line 36/37: there is an issue with the bibliography (numbers vs last authors name in some citations)

- Line 45: is the 6 IBV strains in the last 10 years in Victoria only? If so, please comment on this.

- Line 71 ff (Figure 1 legend): were four or three mice used per group? This is currently unclear. Also more appropriate to speak of 'weight change over time' instead of 'weight loss'.

- Line 83 ff (Figure 2 legend): Change pathogenicity to something like 'Kaplan Meier survival curve'. Pathogenicity could also be reflected in weight loss, viral replication across respiratory organs etc, and this was not assessed here.

- Line 122 ff (Figure 4). The figure and the used colours are confusing. As said in Line 124, the HA, NP and NS segments are identical between the Mem97 WT and Mem97 m.a., then why are the colours different? I think it would be helpful to split the figure up and first show what segments are generated and how they differ between the Mem97 WT and the MEM97 m.a., and then show in a subsequent figure what RG viruses have been generated and tested.

Line135 ff: I find the usage of the word 'heterologous' confusing in this context, because the B/HwNw-Mem97 is already per se an heterologous virus, as it contains the interal segments from B/Mem/1997 and HA/NA from B/Washington/2019.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses an important topic in influenza B virus research by generating mouse-adapted viruses and examining how different viral gene segments contribute to pathogenicity. The study is thoughtfully designed, and the combination of reverse genetics, sequencing, and mouse infection models offers useful insights into virulence determinants. The experiments appear carefully performed, and the use of multiple reassortant viruses adds strength to the work.

That said, several areas need clarification or additional detail to improve transparency and reproducibility.

For the virus that could not be rescued (B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a.), please provide a hypothesis for why rescue failed and discuss possible technical or biological reasons.

PFU measurements were used to monitor virus rescue and replication, and the rescued viruses were confirmed by sequencing. However, no independent positive control was included. Please discuss this limitation and explain how sequencing combined with PFU measurements ensured that the rescue system worked reliably.

No negative control (such as mock-transfected cells or PBS-treated mice) was included. Please clarify how background effects or potential contamination were ruled out.

Please clarify whether PFU or viral titers were measured after each mouse passage during adaptation, or whether cytopathic effect (CPE) was the only readout. Quantitative titers across passages would strengthen conclusions about viral adaptation.

Were lung viral titers measured during the adaptation passages or in the BALB/c and DBA/2J infection studies? If not, please consider adding these data, as they would support the morbidity and mortality observations.

Were histopathological analyses performed on lung tissue to confirm pathology and correlate with clinical signs? If not, please discuss this as a limitation.

Were cytokine profiles or other immune markers measured to provide mechanistic insight into disease severity? If feasible, please consider including these data or discuss this limitation.

Please clarify the rationale for choosing DBA/2J mice for adaptation and BALB/c mice for subsequent infection studies, and discuss how strain-specific susceptibility might influence interpretation.

The manuscript states that virulence is independent of HA and NA. Please expand on the mechanism and explain how the data support this conclusion.

Finally, please include a more explicit discussion of the study’s limitations.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 23;21(3):e0335324. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335324.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Jan 2026

Ref. [PONE-D-25-54336] - [EMID:03d00e8efc403f93] - Multi-segment mouse-adaptation of a recent B/Victoria-lineage virus independent from substitutions in hemagglutinin and neuraminidase

We are grateful to the reviewers for their time and valuable comments on our manuscript. Below, please find our point-by-point responses (in blue font) to the comments that were raised.

Reviewer #1: Matthys and colleagues developed a mouse-adapted IBV strain based on a previously published B/Memphis/12/1997 backbone. They assessed how acquisition of mutations in all viral segments contribute to enhanced pathogenicity in mice, and rescued an reassortant IBV strain which contained the most recent B/Austria/2021 HA and NA.

Given the low pathogenicity of IBV strains in mice in general, this is a useful tool which can be used to study IBV pathogenesis in vivo.

I have a few minor comments which I hope will improve the quality of the manuscript:

- Line 33: add complete lineage names, e.g. B/Victoria/2/1987-like (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988-like

Thank you for the valuable remark. Complete lineage names were added

- Line 36/37: there is an issue with the bibliography (numbers vs last authors name in some citations)

Thank you for the meticulous review, the bibliography was corrected.

- Line 45: is the 6 IBV strains in the last 10 years in Victoria only? If so, please comment on this.

We refer to both strains, which we clarified in the revised manuscript as follows: “... (e.g. 6 distinct Victoria or Yamagata strains were recommended in the last 10 years)...”

- Line 71 ff (Figure 1 legend): were four or three mice used per group? This is currently unclear. Also more appropriate to speak of 'weight change over time' instead of 'weight loss'.

Thank you for highlighting this. We now specify in the figure legend that four mice were used per group. In addition, the caption of the Y-axis in the graphs now reads “% original body weight”.

- Line 83 ff (Figure 2 legend): Change pathogenicity to something like 'Kaplan Meier survival curve'. Pathogenicity could also be reflected in weight loss, viral replication across respiratory organs etc, and this was not assessed here.

“Pathogenicity” was replaced by: “Survival of mice inoculated with...”

- Line 122 ff (Figure 4). The figure and the used colours are confusing. As said in Line 124, the HA, NP and NS segments are identical between the Mem97 WT and Mem97 m.a., then why are the colours different? I think it would be helpful to split the figure up and first show what segments are generated and how they differ between the Mem97 WT and the MEM97 m.a., and then show in a subsequent figure what RG viruses have been generated and tested.

Thank you for this comment. All the segments were amplified from B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus, and then used to rescue the reassortants as depicted in the figure. That is the reason why they were colored differently. However, we agree that color distinction is not necessary for the three non mutated segments. The figure was adapted accordingly.

Line135 ff: I find the usage of the word 'heterologous' confusing in this context, because the B/HwNw-Mem97 is already per se an heterologous virus, as it contains the interal segments from B/Mem/1997 and HA/NA from B/Washington/2019.

We agree with this comment. To improve clarity our statement was rephrased as follows: “To assess whether the 6 internal gene segments of B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. could confer pathogenicity in mice when combined with HA and NA from another IBV, we rescued recombinant viruses carrying the HA and NA gene segments from B/Austria/1359417/2021 and either the six internal segments from B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. or from B/Memphis/12/1997 m.a.”

Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses an important topic in influenza B virus research by generating mouse-adapted viruses and examining how different viral gene segments contribute to pathogenicity. The study is thoughtfully designed, and the combination of reverse genetics, sequencing, and mouse infection models offers useful insights into virulence determinants. The experiments appear carefully performed, and the use of multiple reassortant viruses adds strength to the work.

That said, several areas need clarification or additional detail to improve transparency and reproducibility.

For the virus that could not be rescued (B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a.), please provide a hypothesis for why rescue failed and discuss possible technical or biological reasons.

We believe that the failure to rescue the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. is technical. The major argument for that is the successful rescue of an IBV carrying the HA and NA gene segments from B/Austria/1359417/2021 and the six internal segments from B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a..

PFU measurements were used to monitor virus rescue and replication, and the rescued viruses were confirmed by sequencing. However, no independent positive control was included. Please discuss this limitation and explain how sequencing combined with PFU measurements ensured that the rescue system worked reliably.

Please note that a positive control was included in the rescue: B/Memphis/12/97. The positive control was used to confirm cytopathic effect in HEK/MDCK co-cultures but was not stored or sequenced. This information was not included in Methods section:

“The rescue using all 8 parental B/Memphis/12/97 segments was used as positive control, and the negative control consisted of the same plasmids, except for the one encoding NP”

No negative control (such as mock-transfected cells or PBS-treated mice) was included. Please clarify how background effects or potential contamination were ruled out.

A negative control was included in rescue and comprised a transfection of all segments except NP and no cytopathic effect was observed in this setup.

Please clarify whether PFU or viral titers were measured after each mouse passage during adaptation, or whether cytopathic effect (CPE) was the only readout. Quantitative titers across passages would strengthen conclusions about viral adaptation.

The titration of mouse passages was not included at the time of the mouse adaptation experiments. Our set up allowed to perform one passage per week, so 13 weeks in total. If done sequentially, the titration would extend this period to at least 26 weeks. We have, however, now titrated individually and pooled lung homogenates of passage 3, 6, 9, and 12. The figure below suggests that there is no consistent increase in lung viral titers with increased passage number.

Were lung viral titers measured during the adaptation passages or in the BALB/c and DBA/2J infection studies? If not, please consider adding these data, as they would support the morbidity and mortality observations.

Thank you for the suggestion. However, lung virus titers were not measured during the adaptation passage or in the BALB/c and DBA/2J mice. Please see also our response to the previous comment.

Were histopathological analyses performed on lung tissue to confirm pathology and correlate with clinical signs? If not, please discuss this as a limitation.

Thank you for this remark. We have amended our discussion by including a statement on limitations of our work:

“Our study has limitations. First, although we identified new key substitution in the PA and M segments, the precise molecular mechanism underlying the increased pathogenicity remains to be investigated. Second, we did not assess the cytokine profile or lung histopathology, important parameters to understand the mechanism linked to disease severity.”

Were cytokine profiles or other immune markers measured to provide mechanistic insight into disease severity? If feasible, please consider including these data or discuss this limitation.

Please see response to the previous answer.

Please clarify the rationale for choosing DBA/2J mice for adaptation and BALB/c mice for subsequent infection studies and discuss how strain-specific susceptibility might influence interpretation.

DBA/2J mice were described to be more susceptible to influenza (10.1371/journal.pone.0004857), a phenotype that is attributed to a dysfunction of alveolar macrophages and increased susceptibility to infection of the airways (10.1089/jir.2014.0237). DBA/2J mice also have other dysfunctionality in immune system such as a lack of NKG2A receptors (10.1007/s00251-018-01100-x) and C5 complement (10.1016/S0021-9258(19)39817-5). BALB/c mice are very often used to study influenza virus infection, which is why we turned to BALB/c mice to further evaluate the contribution to pathogenicity of reassortant IBVs with the 6-segment mouse-adapted backbone.

In the discussion, we added the following to address this comment:

“Mouse adaptation was performed by serial passages in DBA/2J mice, which are more susceptible to influenza A virus infection than BALB/cByJ mice (10.1371/journal.pone.0004857 and 10.1371/journal.pone.0004857). This increased susceptibility may explain the difference in LD50 of the B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. virus in DBA/2J mice (25 PFU) compared to BALB/c mice (810 PFU).”

The manuscript states that virulence is independent of HA and NA. Please expand on the mechanism and explain how the data support this conclusion.

Thank you for this remark. We realize that the original title of our manuscript was somewhat misleading. We meant to convey that we were able to generate increased pathogenic virus using internal gene segment from a mouse-adapted IBV combined with HA and NA derived from recent IBV strains. To address this remark, we adapted the title of our manuscript as follows:

“Internal gene segments from a mouse-adapted influenza B virus confer increased pathogenicity to mice”

Finally, please include a more explicit discussion of the study’s limitations.

We added the following statement on limitations of our study to the discussion:

“Our study has limitations. First, although we identified new key substitution in the PA and M segments, the precise molecular mechanism underlying the increased pathogenicity remains to be investigated. Second, we did not assess the cytokine profile or lung histopathology, important parameters to understand the mechanism linked to disease severity.”

________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal - Matthys et al.docx

pone.0335324.s002.docx (28.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Victor Huber

2 Mar 2026

Internal gene segments from a mouse-adapted influenza B virus confer increased pathogenicity to mice

PONE-D-25-54336R1

Dear Dr. Portela Catani,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Victor C Huber

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the careful revision and for providing detailed responses to the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has improved in clarity and transparency following revision.

The clarification of positive and negative controls in the reverse genetics rescue system strengthens confidence in the experimental approach. The explanation regarding the unsuccessful rescue of B/HwNw-Mem97 m.a. is reasonable, particularly in light of the successful rescue of reassortant viruses sharing the same internal backbone. The addition of viral titration data across selected mouse passages provides helpful context for the adaptation process.

The rationale for the use of DBA/2J mice for adaptation and BALB/c mice for infection studies is now clearly justified and appropriately supported by literature. Importantly, the revision of the manuscript title and clarification of the role of internal gene segments address concerns regarding potential overinterpretation of HA and NA independence.

Although measurements of lung viral titers during infection, histopathological analysis, and immune profiling would further strengthen mechanistic insight, the authors have appropriately acknowledged these as limitations in the discussion.

Overall, the revisions satisfactorily address the reviewer’s concerns and improve the manuscript.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mahmuda Yeasmin

**********

Acceptance letter

Victor Huber

PONE-D-25-54336R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Portela Catani,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Victor C Huber

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal - Matthys et al.docx

    pone.0335324.s002.docx (28.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data supporting the findings of this study are included within the paper.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES