• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Virology . Evaluating sampling strategies for the detection of avian influenza viruses in the environment

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Virology

. 2026 Sep 2:625:111069.
doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2026.111069. Online ahead of print.

Evaluating sampling strategies for the detection of avian influenza viruses in the environment​


Allison K Miller 1 , Lia Heremia 2 , Stephanie J Waller 2 , Sarah-Lou Blanchard 2 , Jordan T Taylor 2 , Jackson M Treece 3 , Michelle Wille 4 , Neil J Gemmell 3 , David Winter 5 , Edwina J Dowle 6 , Jemma L Geoghegan 7

Affiliations


Abstract​


Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses pose an increasing threat to wildlife, livestock and human health, underscoring the need for scalable and early-warning surveillance systems. Environmental RNA (eRNA) monitoring offers a non-invasive, cost-effective alternative to traditional host-based sampling by detecting viral genetic material shed into the environment. Despite its utility, the relative performance of different environmental sampling approaches for avian influenza virus (AIV) detection remains poorly resolved. Here, we conducted a longitudinal study with monthly sampling over approximately one year across two urban waterfowl ponds in Aotearoa New Zealand to evaluate four eRNA sampling strategies - fresh faeces, sediment, active-filtered water and passive-filtered water - for their ability to detect AIV. Using a combination of metagenomic sequencing and RT-qPCR, we show that all sample types can detect AIV, although detections were highly inconsistent across sampling methods, locations and time points. While metagenomic sequencing provided valuable genomic data, including subtype identification and phylogenetic context, RT-qPCR exhibited greater sensitivity, with active-filtered water yielding the highest detection rates, and is currently the more cost-effective approach for large-scale surveillance. Notably, AIV detections were asynchronous among sample types and frequently lacked temporal concordance, suggesting that environmental heterogeneity, RNA persistence, and methodological detection limits strongly influence surveillance outcomes. Despite these inconsistencies, phylogenetic analyses revealed that detected viruses belong to established Australasian lineages, highlighting the ability of environmental surveillance to capture ecologically relevant viral diversity. Our findings demonstrate that while eRNA-based surveillance holds substantial promise as a complementary tool for AIV monitoring, its effectiveness is highly dependent on the environmental sampling strategies and laboratory detection methods used.

Keywords: Ducks; Flu; Metagenomics; Metatranscriptomics; Sediment; Water; eRNA; rt-qPCR.
 
Back
Top Bottom