Air sampling accurately captures circulating zoonotic viral diversity emerging from poultry live-animal markets

Air sampling accurately captures circulating zoonotic viral diversity emerging from poultry live-animal markets | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Biological Sciences - Article Air sampling accurately captures circulating zoonotic viral diversity emerging from poultry live-animal markets Peter Cronin, Jurre Siegers, Vireak Heang, Songha Tok, Sarath Sin, and 15 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5682962/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Nature Communications → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Environmental surveillance has emerged as a pivotal strategy for early detection of pathogens that pose threats to humans (1) but has not been utilized for zoonotic agents. In Asia, live-bird markets (LBMs) are key human-animal interfaces for zoonotic virus transmission (2). Traditional sampling strategies are time-consuming, expensive, threaten animal welfare and have significant occupational biosafety risks. In this study, we assessed the performance of metagenomics on environmental samples (ES) compared to traditional poultry swabs for detecting avian viral pathogens in LBMs in Cambodia. ES, including air, cage swabs, and carcass wash water, were collected alongside throat and cloacal swabs from domestic chickens and ducks across twelve sampling visits in two LBMs over a 15-month period. Viral nucleic acids were extracted and sequenced using a capture probe-based metagenomics approach. Our results show that metagenomics on ES outperformed traditional poultry samples in detecting the highly pathogenic Influenza A/H5N1, including circulating clades 2.3.4.4b and 2.3.2.1c, which were found in the environment but missed by poultry swabs on multiple occasions. Environmental metagenomics was also highly sensitive in the detection of over 40 other viruses from key pathogen families such as Astroviridae , Coronaviridae , Picornaviridae , and Retroviridae . Viral contigs from ES showed high similarity to those from poultry swabs further highlighting the accuracy of this approach. Our findings highlight metagenomics on ES can precisely and effectively replicate metagenomic results from traditional surveillance samples, offering broader coverage and enhanced detection of avian pathogens. This robust approach could be pivotal for mitigating zoonotic spillover, controlling pathogen transmission at LBMs, and enhancing pandemic preparedness strategies. Biological sciences/Microbiology/Virology/Influenza virus Biological sciences/Genetics/Sequencing/Next-generation sequencing Health sciences/Risk factors Health sciences/Diseases/Respiratory tract diseases Biological sciences/Ecology/Microbial ecology Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Environmental surveillance has become an increasingly important strategy for early detection and monitoring of viral pathogens ( 1 , 3 ). Several major disease outbreaks in humans have resulted from zoonotic spillover from animals ( 4 – 9 ) making pathogen surveillance at human-animal interfaces such as live-bird markets (LBMs) critical. LBMs are common in Asia, holding critical socio-economic significance. However, they are also marked by the prevalence of both endemic and emerging infectious diseases of One Health importance, including highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus (AIV) H5N1 ( 2 , 10 , 11 ). Highly pathogenic A/H5N1 has a mortality rate exceeding 50% in humans ( 12 , 13 ) while also imposing a significant economic burden on global poultry industries ( 14 , 15 ). Outbreaks of pathogens like A/H5N1 in poultry often lead to severe economic losses affecting livelihoods reliant on small scale poultry production ( 16 – 18 ). Other pathogenic avian viruses, including members of the Rotavirus ( 19 , 20 ), Avastrovirus ( 21 ), Gammacoronavirus ( 22 ) and Alpharetrovirus genera ( 23 ) also cause substantial losses in domestic poultry. Improving pathogen surveillance systems at LBMs is essential to infectious disease monitoring, risk mitigation, and outbreak response, especially in developing regions of the world. Pathogen monitoring at LBMs has traditionally relied on random testing of individual animals via oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs. However, this approach may miss circulating pathogens if the selected bird is not infected when sampled, thus limiting the probability of detection. In addition, traditional sampling strategies are time-consuming, costly, and pose significant occupational biosafety risks while compromising animal welfare ( 24 , 25 ). ES, particularly air, can provide a more comprehensive, safe, and easier approach to pathogen surveillance. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that poultry virus shedding can result in contamination of the surrounding environment, with the environment becoming a reservoir of pathogens exacerbated by insufficient biosecurity measures at LBMs ( 26 , 27 ). Previously, we demonstrated through air sampling that workers at an LBM in Cambodia were exposed to influenza subtypes A/H5N1 and A/H9N2 ( 28 ) and this approach has also proven successful in accurately detecting pathogens in other settings ( 29 – 32 ). In addition, ES can be used to detect influenza A virus subtypes from sources such as the wash water used to clean bird carcasses after de-feathering at LBMs ( 28 ). We hypothesize that ES could supplement traditional poultry pathogen surveillance and provide insight into risks of environmental exposure for LBM workers and consumers. This information is crucial for mitigating risks of pathogen transmission between birds and throughout the poultry supply chain, and for preventing spillover to humans. However, it remains unknown whether metagenomic data from ES in LBMs accurately reflects data from traditional poultry samples used for pathogen surveillance. To date, environmental pathogen surveillance has largely relied on PCR-based methods, often used for monitoring of select human pathogens (e.g., influenza A and SARS-CoV-2) in wastewater and sewage ( 33 , 34 ). Although these approaches offer high sensitivity and specificity, they are limited in the range of viruses they can detect. Unbiased metagenomics has emerged as a method with a much broader target range for virus identification and surveillance, allowing detection of a diverse array of known and novel pathogens ( 35 ). One major challenge using metagenomics is the low amount of viral nucleic acid present in most sample types, compared to higher levels of host and environmental nucleic material. Methods to reduce non-target sequences in metagenomic data have been explored, but vary in effectiveness ( 36 ). However, viral enrichment using probe hybridization methods has been shown to significantly improve sensitivity across different sample types, enabling the accurate detection of low abundance and/or low-frequency virus variants ( 37 – 40 ). In this study, we compared the performance of targeted virus capture probe-based metagenomics on several different ES types versus traditional poultry swab samples from LBMs for the detection and surveillance of avian pathogens. We hypothesize that using metagenomics on ES may offer a more robust approach to facilitate the early detection of virus transmission at high-risk human-animal interfaces, allowing for more rapid and effective risk mitigation measures to take place. Materials and methods Study design and sample collection Between January 2022 and April 2023 samples were collected on 12 occasions in Cambodia at Orussey market, Phnom Penh province and Daun Keo market, Takeo province (Supplementary Fig. 1). Individual animal samples consisted of oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs collected from an domestic ducks and chickens. These were combined into pools of ten individual cloacal or oropharyngeal swabs for sample processing, with ducks and chickens pooled separately. ES comprised air, carcass wash water, cage swabs, and drinking water. Air samples were collected for three hours at three locations at each market (the slaughter area, the poultry holding/storage area, and a “control area” - either the food storage area located in a separate building or > 50m away from the LBM) using AerosolSenseTM Samplers (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Air was sampled through an omnidirectional inlet at a rate of 200 L/min. Collected material was eluted from each air sampler by rinsing and vortexing the collection matrix in 2 mL of viral transport medium. Carcass wash water (50 mL) used to wash poultry carcasses after slaughter and de-feathering processes was collected from the slaughter area. Cage swabs were collected from selected cages in the poultry holding area of the market. Where available, 2 mL of poultry drinking water from inside poultry cages was collected. All samples were transported at 4°C to Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, aliquoted into tubes on arrival and stored at − 80°C until further processing. RNA extraction, library preparation and next-generation sequencing RNA was extracted from each sample pool using the Direct-zol RNA Miniprep Kit (Zymo Research, California, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol and eluted in 50uL of nuclease-free water. Sequencing libraries were generated using the Twist Library Preparation Enzymatic Fragmentation (EF) kit 2.0 (Twist Bioscience, San Francisco, California, USA) and the Twist Comprehensive Viral Research Panel (CVRP), according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Twist Total Nucleic Acids Library Preparation EF Kit 2.0 for Viral Pathogen Detection and Characterization Protocol and Twist Target Enrichment Standard Hybridization v1 protocol). Briefly, extracted RNA was converted to cDNA using the ProtoScript II First Strand cDNA Synthesis kit (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA) and Random Primer 6 (S1230S) from New England Biolabs (NEB). The NEB Next Ultra II Non-Directional RNA second Strand Synthesis kit (E6111S) was subsequently used to convert the single-stranded cDNA to double stranded DNA (dsDNA). Illumina TruSeq-compatible libraries were generated using the Twist Library Preparation EF kit 2.0 and combined into pools of six libraries. The pooled libraries were enriched by hybridization capture using the Twist Comprehensive Viral Research Panel (CVRP). Following enrichment, libraries were pooled in equimolar ratios, diluted and denatured prior to sequencing according to the standard MiSeq System Denature and Dilute Libraries Guide (Document # 15039740v10). Sequencing was performed Finally, the library was sequenced to generate paired-end 75bp reads using a MiSeq V3 reagent kit (Illumina, MS-102-3001) on the Illumina MiSeq System. Processing of viral sequencing data Raw sequencing data was processed using the CZ ID pipeline ( https://czid.org ) which is an open-source cloud-based metagenomics pipeline for global pathogen detection and monitoring ( 41 ). Viral abundance was estimated as reads per million (RPM) relative to the total number of reads which mapped to virus sequences, while de novo assembled contigs were directly downloaded from the CZ ID website. SeqKit was used for sequence length filtering and FASTA file manipulation ( 42 ). Contigs de novo assembled from poultry swabs were mapped to those assembled in environmental samples using BWA-MEM2 ( 43 ). Alignment rates (percentage reads mapped) were calculated using Samtools ( 44 ). Biostatistical analysis All biostatistical analyses were carried out in Rstudio (version 4.4.0) ( 45 ). Β-diversity (Jaccard Index) was calculated using the vegdist function in the vegan package (version 2.7) ( 46 ). To statistically test for differences between sample types we employed a Permutational Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) test which was calculated using the adonis function also in the vegan package. Pairwise PERMANOVAs were calculated using the pairwise.adonis function. To visualise virome composition between sample types we used principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) using the dudi.pco function of the ade4 package (version 1.7) ( 47 ). To perform a quantitative comparative evaluation of virome composition we employed a median centroid testing methodology based on the Jaccard distances from a PCoA. This approach sees the median PCo1 and PCo2 coordinates calculated (median centroid) for each poultry swab sample type and the distance of all other samples from this point is subsequently determined. Spearman correlations were calculated using the corr.test function in the psych package ( 48 ). In order to estimate the proportion of viruses in ES that are likely to have come from each poultry swab type source tracking analysis was conducted using the R package SourceTracker ( 49 ). All plots used to visualise data were produced using the ggplot2 package in R ( 50 ). Heatmaps were produced using either the ComplexHeatmap package( 51 ) or the circlize package ( 52 ). Statistical significance was determined using the non-parametric Wilcox test between two comparative groups. When statistical significance was being determined between three or more comparative groups the non-parametric Kruskall-Wallis with Dunns post-hoc test was employed using the PMCMRplus package. All P-values obtained were corrected for false-discovery rate (FDR) using the Benjamini-Hochberg method (p.adjust function in R). P values are annotated as follows unless otherwise stated: P < 0.05 *; P < 0.01 **; P < 0.001***. Phylogenetic tree reconstruction For phylogenetic tree reconstruction of influenza gene segments from de novo assembled contigs all available reference sequences were downloaded from the NCBI Influenza database and GISAID from January 1, 2014 to July 1, 2024. From our metagenomic data, only influenza contigs de novo assembled through the CZ ID pipeline and greater than 200bp were included for analysis. Contig taxonomy was determined using blast ( 53 ). Reference datasets were subsampled to 500 sequences using SMOT( 54 ) and combined with sequences identified in the current study. For all other viruses, all available full length reference sequences of a given virus were downloaded from the NCBI virus database. Multiple nucleotide sequence alignments were carried out using Clustal Omega using default settings ( 55 ). The resulting multiple sequence alignments were manually curated, and erroneous or ambiguous regions were trimmed to ensure alignment accuracy using trimAl ( 53 , 56 ). Maximum likelihood phylogenies for each gene segment or genome were individually reconstructed using IQ-TREE (version 2.1.4)( 57 ) with the best fit nucleotide substitution model. No bootstrapping or other estimates of nodal support were applied. Phylogenetic trees were plotted in R using the ggtree package ( 58 ). Results Environmental metagenomics accurately detects circulating pathogens of domestic poultry To evaluate the performance of metagenomics for viral pathogen detection using ES compared to poultry swabs, we first calculated the detection rates of each viral pathogen among both sample types. A total of 84 viruses were found at least once in domestic poultry swabs across the 12 sampling dates at the two LBMs in Cambodia (Fig. 1 A). We showed that the majority of viruses found in poultry swabs could also be found in corresponding ES at each timepoint with detection rates consistently ranging between 70% and 90% (Fig. 1 A and Supplementary Fig. 2A and 2B). Common avian respiratory viruses including avian influenza and avian coronavirus were frequently identified in ES (Fig. 1 A). While this was also true for other pathogens including Rous sarcoma virus, avian leukosis virus, avian orthoreovirus ( Retroviridae ), chicken astrovirus ( Astroviridae ). Virus sequences that were not be detected in ES were in significantly lower abundance in poultry swabs (Fig. 1 B) and were in circulation at the LBMs less often than those successfully detected (Supplementary Fig. 3). Only two respiratory viruses were not found in the environment that were found in poultry swabs (Gull coronavirus, and Deltacoronavirus sp.). Other undetected viruses either infect the gastrointestinal tract (viruses in the Astroviridae families) or were oncoviruses (including avian sarcoma virus CT10, Y73 sarcoma virus and avian retrovirus) (Fig. 1 A). Importantly, there was no association between taxonomic family and detection in ES. For example, although avastrovirus 3 and astrovirus HK-2014 could not be found in the environment, several other viruses in the Astroviridae family were successfully identified in both poultry swabs and ES. In addition, we observed remarkable consistency in the performance of environmental metagenomic surveillance at the LBM. Taxa detected in poultry swabs and the environment were consistently co-detected regardless of when and where they were circulating. We next evaluated the performance of each individual environmental sample type in the detection of corresponding poultry viruses. Air samples collected from the slaughter and holding area as well as cage swabs contained significantly more avian viruses than air from outside the market, wash water or drinking water (Supplementary Fig. 4A and 4B). These findings were consistent between both sampling locations. Furthermore, the total number of viruses detected in each individual ES was significantly less than the total number found in poultry swabs at each sampling date (Fig. 1 C), suggesting that a variety of sample types are required to accurately capture the most viral viruses from poultry. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of b-diversity (Jaccard distance) focusing only on the avian viruses identified in this study (Fig. 1 A) revealed statistically significant virome separation between the groups after controlling for location and time (PERMANOVA < 0.001*** and R2 = 0.037) (Supplementary Fig. 5). Pairwise PERMANOVA of each individual comparison revealed no significant differences between ES types including cage swabs, drinking water and air samples from the holding area and slaughter area (Supplementary File 1). Interestingly, air samples from outside the LBM, as well as wash water, were significantly different from all other sample types. Both cloacal and oropharyngeal swabs collected from chickens had significantly different virome compositions compared to the same swab types from ducks (Supplementary Fig. 5). Given the observed differences in virome composition between poultry swab types we wanted to evaluate the relationship/performance with each samples type individually. Thus, based on the PCoA in Supplementary Fig. 5, we calculated the median coordinates (PCo1 and PCo2) of each poultry swab (cloacal and throat from both domestic ducks and chickens) and subsequently measured the distance of all samples from each point (Fig. 1 D-G). Using this quantitative comparative evaluation of virome composition we show that no significant difference could be detected between cloacal samples from chickens and samples from drinking water, cage swabs as well as air from both the slaughter and holding area (Fig. 1 D). Similar findings were observed when comparing throat swabs from chickens with drinking water, cage swabs and wash water, although air samples were a significantly larger distance by this measure (Fig. 1 E). Interestingly, no difference could be detected between wash water and throat or cloacal swabs from ducks when comparing their respective distances from each median centroid (Fig. 1 F-G). To better understand why specific viruses were not detected in ES, we first identified the poultry swab type most associated with undetected taxa. To do this, we calculated Spearman correlations between viral abundance (RPM) and the distance from each poultry swab median centroid as calculated in Fig. 1 D-G, comparing the results between detected and undetected taxa identified in Fig. 1 A. We found that viruses that were not identified through environmental sampling (undetected) were associated with the virome of throat and cloacal duck samples (Supplementary Fig. 6A and 6B). In both cases, undetected viruses tended to have more negative correlations than those successfully detected suggesting their abundance is higher the shorter the distance to the median centroids of duck samples. The opposite trend was reported for cloacal swabs in chickens which had a strong association with taxa successfully detected in poultry swabs (Supplementary Fig. 6C). However, no significant difference could be found for throat swabs in chickens (Supplementary Fig. 6D). Using a Bayesian approach, we conducted source tracking analysis to estimate the proportion of viruses in ES that are likely to have come from each poultry swab type (Fig. 1 H). We found that cloacal swabs from chickens were identified as the dominant source of virus composition for all ES. The probability of cloacal swabs from chickens contributing to the environmental virome composition was significantly higher compared to throat swabs from chickens as well as both sample types from ducks (Fig. 1 H). Importantly, ES analysed using targeted metagenomics revealed an additional 50 viruses which were not found through traditional poultry swab sampling (Supplementary Fig. 7). While the majority of these viruses may be from alternative sources (such as arboviruses or porcine viruses), several avian viruses were also detected, including goose aviadenovirus A. duck adenovirus 4, pigeon circovirus, shelduck picobirnavirus II and avian dependoparvovirus 1. Metagenomics on ES also detected the arbovirus dengue virus 3 as well as the common human respiratory pathogen Rhinovirus A1 (Supplementary Fig. 7). Importantly, this highlights a major advantage of ES in facilitating the detection of viruses which may be missed by traditional sampling methods or circulating pathogens from other sources. Overall, these findings suggest that the environmental sampling conducted at LBMs performs better at detecting chicken viruses than those infecting ducks, while cloacal-derived chicken viruses appear to be a major source for the environmental pathogens in LBMs. Most viral contigs from poultry align to environmental contigs Next, we aimed to assess whether de novo assembled viral contigs from ES were an accurate representation of those found in poultry swab samples. We found that the majority of contigs (≥ 200bp) from direct poultry samples mapped to those from ES (Fig. 2 A). Interestingly, the proportion of viral contigs between throat and cloacal swabs obtained from chickens were similar (not statistically significant, P = 0.06) (Fig. 2 B). However, both sample types had a significantly greater percentage of successfully mapped viral contigs than throat/cloacal swabs obtained from ducks. In addition to having a lower percentage of mapped viral contigs, cloacal and throat samples obtained from ducks yielded significantly fewer viral contigs than those from chickens (Fig. 2 C). For both throat and cloacal swabs obtained from chickens, the highest percentage of viral contigs was shown to map to the ES air (slaughter and holding) and cage swabs (Fig. 2 D-E). Large variation in the percentage of viral contigs mapped was observed between air samples collected from outside the LBMs (Fig. 2 D-E). No significant differences could be determined between the percentage of viral contigs mapped between ES and duck (Supplementary Fig. 8A and 8B). Overall, these findings confirm differences in the performance of ES for different bird species. Environmental samples yielded highly pathogenic influenza A contigs more often than poultry swabs Across the length of the sampling period, at both LBM locations, we identified four different influenza hemagglutinin (HA) subtypes in ducks and chickens including H5, H6, H7 and H9 (Fig. 3 A-C and Supplementary Fig. 9–13). H5 clade 2.3.4.4b was found on three separate visits to the market (Fig. 3 A, 3 D and Supplementary Fig. 9). However, only once was this H5 clade identified through both traditional poultry swab sampling and corresponding ES, while 2.3.4.4b was found in wash water, cage swabs, and air samples at two other dates independent of avian sampling (Fig. 3 D and Supplementary Fig. 9). Similar findings occurred for clade 2.3.2.1c, which was detected at LBMs on four separate sampling visits (Fig. 3 A, 3 D and Supplementary Fig. 10). On one occasion, both clade 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b were detected in eight different ES (4 air, 2 cage swabs and 2 wash water samples), suggesting high prevalence in birds coming into the market, and significant environmental contamination (Fig. 3 D). However, no sequences were identified through direct animal sampling on this occasion, highlighting the versatility of environmental sampling. In total, HA subtype H6 was found in 27 samples across the study, with both the ST2853-like and HN57-like clade detected. The HN57-like clade was found in ducks but was not detected in corresponding ES (Fig. 3 B, 3 D and Supplementary Fig. 12), and this was the only detection of the HN57-like clade of H6 influenza in this study. On six separate sampling visits, the ST2853-like H6 clade was successfully sequenced from poultry swabs as well as air samples and carcass wash water (Fig. 3 B, 3 D and Supplementary Fig. 11). On one visit, H6 was detected in air but not in the corresponding poultry swabs (Fig. 3 D). The Eurasian avian lineage of H7 HA was only found once and was sequenced from both air and poultry samples at the same time and place (Supplementary Figs. 13 and 14). H9 HA was the predominant HA subtype detected, with a total of 43 positive samples across all 12 visits (Fig. 3 C and Supplementary Figs. 15 and 16). On seven different sampling visits, H9 was identified in both poultry samples and ES. Importantly, on four separate sampling visits, H9 sequences were found in data from ES but were not identified in data from poultry swabs (Fig. 3 D). The opposite trend was also reported, whereby H9 sequences were detected in duck samples but were not observed in any ES (N = 1). Overall, metagenomics using ES at LBMs detected circulating influenza A subtypes more often than metagenomics using traditional poultry swabs. Three different neuraminidase (NA) gene subtypes were identified at LBMs in this study including N1, N2 and N6 (Fig. 3 D-F). In line with H5 HA results, we identified both the 2.3.4.4b and the 2.3.2.1c clade of N1 (Fig. 3 E and Supplementary Fig. 17–19). The 2.3.4.4b N1 clade was only detected in poultry swabs and ES (drinking water and air) on two visits (Fig. 3 D and Supplementary Figs. 17 and 18). Six different ES yielded the detection of both H5 and N1 genes (representing the 2.3.4.4b and 2.3.2.1c clades) on December 23, 2022, at the LBM in Takeo province. N2 was the most common NA subtype found throughout the study and was consistently co-detected in both poultry swabs and ES (Fig. 3 D, 3 F and Supplementary Fig. 20). In line with other findings, N6 sequences of the H5 Eurasian lineage were also consistently co-detected in both poultry samples and ES (Fig. 3 D, 3 G and Supplementary Figs. 22 and 23). To further confirm the presence of full genomes of influenza A in our dataset, two internal genes were selected for analysis (PB2 and PA). In line with the findings for HA and NA, both PB2 and PA sequences de novo assembled from ES corresponded to those found in poultry swabs at each sampling timepoint (Supplementary Figs. 24 and 25). Hierarchal clustering based on influenza HA and NA subtype detection revealed that the HA H9 commonly co-occurred with N2 at both LBMs (Fig. 3 H). Using this approach, we were also able to infer that HA H6 (ST2853-like clade) co-occurred mostly with N6 while both H5 clades 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b co-occurred with N1 clades of the same subtype. While by nature metagenomic sequencing and de novo assembly of viral influenza A contigs from the environment and pooled poultry samples makes full length genome identification impossible for segmented RNA viruses, hierarchal clustering of detection patterns allows us to infer (co)-circulating subtypes. Environmental sample-derived contigs representing important avian pathogens are related to those identified in poultry swabs Given that de novo assembled influenza sequences from ES accurately represent those detected in poultry swabs, we assessed if environmentally-derived sequences from other viruses also represented those identified from poultry sampling. Phylogenetic trees were constructed for nine different pathogenic avian viruses within the families Astroviridae , Coronaviridae , Adenoviridae , Retroviridae , Pneumoviridae and Picobirnaviridae . The phylogeny of common oncogenic pathogens in the genus Alpharetrovirus (family Retroviridae) highlighted that sequences from poultry swabs were a short phylogenetic distance from ES sequences for three different viruses, namely, Avian leukosis virus, Avian myeloblastosis virus, and Rous sarcoma virus (Fig. 4 A-C). This observation was also confirmed for Avastrovirus 1; however, ES also resulted in a greater number of contigs representing this virus than poultry swabs. Sequences from two different Gamacoronaviruses ( Avian coronavirus and Duck coronavirus ) also exhibited high similarity between poultry and environmental contigs (Fig. 4 E-F). Importantly, the performance of ES was consistent regardless of which clade poultry swab derived contigs placed in the tree. Further analysis of both chicken picobirnavirus and a member of the Pneumoviridae family (Avian metapneumovirus) highlight ES as a robust method for accurately capturing avian viral sequences (Fig. 4 G-H). For the virus Fowl aviadenovirus D, we report a large number of sequences obtained from the LBMs that group into a distinct clade, separate from the majority of available reference sequences (Fig. 4 I). However, phylogenetic inference for Fowl aviadenovirus D again shows the that ES viral contigs are highly similar to those from traditional poultry swab sampling (Fig. 4 I). Overall, these findings highlight the performance of environmental metagenomic surveillance as a tool for accurate detection of poultry pathogens. Discussion Here we demonstrate that using targeted probe-enriched metagenomics on environmental surveillance samples can be an effective approach to replace targeted probe-enriched metagenomics on direct poultry swab samples for detecting viral sequences at LBMs. We found a strong association between viruses identified through poultry swabs and those detected in the surrounding environment. Phylogenetic analyses revealed high sequence similarity between viral contigs assembled from both sample types. Notably, metagenomics using ES detected AIV H5 clades 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b more frequently than metagenomics using traditional swabs. The sampling and analysis methodologies described have the potential to enable faster responses to disease outbreaks at LBMs, offering a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to conventional pathogen surveillance, especially in high-risk settings such as LBMs. Previous work on pandemic respiratory viruses, including influenza A viruses and SARS-CoV-2, has shown that these viruses can remain infectious for extended periods outside the host ( 60 – 62 ), surviving in various environmental conditions and mediums such as air ( 63 – 67 ), inanimate surfaces ( 63 , 68 – 70 ), and wastewater ( 71 – 74 ). While similar environmental persistence has been reported for AIVs, limited information is available about other avian pathogens ( 75 , 76 ). In this study, detection of multiple avian pathogens from several viral families by metagenomics in the LBM environment demonstrates that ES is a useful method detection of sample collection in such settings. Furthermore, analysis of ES facilitated the detection of over 50 viruses that were not found in poultry swabs. While poultry may have been the host for some for these viruses, the majority of viruses may be from alternative sources/hosts yet still pose a significant threat to human and animal health. Importantly, this finding highlights the expanded surveillance coverage provided by ES, allowing the identification of pathogens which may otherwise go undetected. Our findings show that avian pathogen viral nucleic acids persist outside the host in LBMs, possibly increasing the risk of infection of naive poultry through indirect transmission routes. Airborne transmission emerged as a particularly concerning pathway, as air from slaughter and holding areas contained more sequences from poultry viruses than other ES. Moreover, air samples collected near food stalls adjacent to the poultry processing area also contained avian viral sequences. These results imply that market employees, consumers, and bystanders may be at increased risk of infection via airborne transmission. These findings emphasize the argument for improved air quality and the physical separation of slaughter areas to mitigate the potential spread of poultry viruses. However, further studies are needed to determine if the nucleic acids detected in environmental samples represent viable, infectious viruses capable of replication. Although each individual ES yielded fewer viruses compared to poultry swabs, ES exhibited high specificity in detecting viruses from different poultry swab types. For instance, chicken pathogens were strongly associated with air, cage swabs, and drinking water, while duck pathogens were more often detected in carcass wash water and oropharyngeal swabs. These results highlight the need for sampling diverse environmental types to maximize pathogen detection efficiency, particularly in markets with multiple bird species are present at different densities/quantities. LBMs typically experience rapid turnover of poultry, with new batches arriving daily from multiple suppliers. Traditional random poultry sampling methods often fail to capture the full range of circulating viruses, as they rely on the assumption that sampled birds are infected. In contrast, our study shows that ES detects AIVs more frequently than traditional sampling. Despite the use of probe hybridization to enrich viral nucleic acids and improve sensitivity, some low-abundance taxa found in poultry swabs were undetected in environmental samples. These viruses were rare in the LBM during the study period, suggesting that low infection and replication rates may limit their environmental detection. Even with viral enrichment, some pathogens may fall below the detection threshold in environmental samples ( 77 , 78 ). Undetected avian pathogens were primarily associated with the throat and cloacal virome of ducks, while ES was more effective at capturing chicken pathogens. This may in part be explained by a larger quantity of chickens being sold at the particular LBMs sampled ( 79 ). Another explanation for this may be variations in virus shedding patterns between species ( 80 – 82 ). Previous meta-analysis has shown that chickens shed higher concentrations of certain influenza subtypes and other viruses through the cloaca compared to ducks ( 81 ). Our study supports these findings, with the cloaca of chickens emerging as the predominant source of viral pathogens in ES. Overall, ES offers a safer, more cost effective and comprehensive alternative to traditional sampling methods, reducing both biosafety risks and animal welfare concerns associated with pathogen monitoring. Indeed, fewer samples are needed to understand an overview of the market virome and viruses which are not present in randomly sampled poultry can be detected. The framework used in this study could be adapted for other human-animal interfaces to strengthen pathogen surveillance systems and mitigate disease risks in similar settings. Declarations Ethics statement All sample collections conducted for this study adhered to ethical guidelines and were carried out in collaboration with the National Animal Health and Production Institute. The collections were conducted under protocols approved by the National Ethics Committee for Health Research (NECHR) under the Ministry of Health, Cambodia, with approval numbers NECHR013, NECHR143, NECHR149, and NECHR320 approved in 2021 and 2022. Cambodia does not have a specific animal ethics review board; however, further informal approvals for animal sample collections are given by the General Directorate of Animal Health and Production under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Acknowledgements The investigators thank everyone involved in the critical discussions and review of this manuscript. They also thank everyone involved in live bird market and influenza surveillance and response in the Kingdom of Cambodia including teams at the National Institute for Public Health, Cambodian Communicable Disease Control Department, Ministry of Health, National Animal Health and Production Institute, General Directorate of Animal Health and Production, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, World Health Organization, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, provincial health and agriculture directors, market managers, middlemen, vendors, and sellers from the live bird markets, and the Virology Unit at Institut Pasteur du Cambodge who contributed to this study. The text as published does not necessarily represent the official view of US-CDC, WHO, or FAO. Funding Research reported in this publication was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-049293), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases under subaward #12-312-0217530 issued under prime award #1U01AI151378-01, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or of the FAO. Author contributions Conceptualization: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Data curation: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Formal analysis: P.C., J.Y.S., and V.H. Funding acquisition: J.Y.S., V.H., C.F., and E.A.K. Investigation: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., S. Tok, S. Sin, B. Sievers, V.O., S.N., K.C., V.C., B. Seng, M.H., S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Methodology: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Project administration: B. Seng, M.H., S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Resources: J.Y.S., M.H., F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Software: P.C. Supervision: B. Seng, S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Validation: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Visualization: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Writing - original draft: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Writing - review & editing: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., S. Tok, S. Sin, B. Sievers, V.O., S.N., K.C., V.C., B. Seng, M.H., S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. All authors substantially contributed to the discussion of content. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Data availability Data used in this study is publicly available under accession number PRJEB83776. References Peccia J, Zulli A, Brackney DE, Grubaugh ND, Kaplan EH, Casanovas-Massana A, Ko AI, Malik AA, Wang D, Wang M et al (2020) Measurement of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater tracks community infection dynamics. Nat Biotechnol 2020 38:10:38, 1164–1167 Coker RJ, Hunter BM, Rudge JW, Liverani M, Hanvoravongchai P (2011) Emerging infectious diseases in southeast Asia: Regional challenges to control. Lancet 377:599–609 Kitajima M, Ahmed W, Bibby K, Carducci A, Gerba CP, Hamilton KA, Haramoto E, Rose JB (2020) SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater: State of the knowledge and research needs. Sci Total Environ 739:139076 Leifels M, Khalilur Rahman O, Sam I-C, Cheng D, Chua FJD, Nainani D, Kim SY, Ng WJ, Kwok WC, Sirikanchana K et al (2022) The one health perspective to improve environmental surveillance of zoonotic viruses: lessons from COVID-19 and outlook beyond. ISME Communications , 2 Sharan M, Vijay D, Yadav JP, Bedi JS, Dhaka P (2023) Surveillance and response strategies for zoonotic diseases: a comprehensive review. Sci One Health 2:100050 Chan JFW, Lau SKP, To KKW, Cheng VCC, Woo PCY, Yue KY (2015) Middle East Respiratory syndrome coronavirus: Another zoonotic betacoronavirus causing SARS-like disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 28:465–522 Walsh MG (2015) Mapping the risk of Nipah virus spillover into human populations in South and Southeast Asia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 109:563–571 Rappole JH, Derrickson SR, Hubálek Z (2000) Migratory birds and spread of West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphere. Emerg Infect Dis 6:319 Leroy EM, Epelboin A, Mondonge V, Pourrut X, Gonzalez JP, Muyembe-Tamfum JJ, Formenty P (2009) Human ebola outbreak resulting from direct exposure to fruit bats in Luebo, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2007. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis 9:723–728 Turner JCM, Feeroz MM, Hasan MK, Akhtar S, Walker D, Seiler P, Barman S, Franks J, Jones-Engel L, McKenzie P et al (2017) Insight into live bird markets of Bangladesh: an overview of the dynamics of transmission of H5N1 and H9N2 avian influenza viruses. Emerg Microbes Infect, 6 Horm SV, Tarantola A, Rith S, Ly S, Gambaretti J, Duong V, Phalla Y, Sorn S, Holl D, Allal L et al (2016) Intense circulation of A/H5N1 and other avian influenza viruses in Cambodian live-bird markets with serological evidence of sub-clinical human infections. Emerg Microbes Infect 5:1–9 Wille M, Barr IG (2022) Resurgence of avian influenza virus. Sci (1979) 376:459–460 Al-Tawfiq JA, Tirupathi R, Temsah MH (2024) Feathered fears: Could avian H5N1 influenza be the next pandemic threat of disease X? New Microbes New Infect, 59 Shi J, Zeng X, Cui P, Yan C, Chen H (2023) Alarming situation of emerging H5 and H7 avian influenza and effective control strategies. Emerg Microbes Infect, 12 Lambert S, Durand B, Andraud M, Delacourt R, Scoizec A, Le Bouquin S, Rautureau S, Bauzile B, Guinat C, Fourtune L et al (2022) Two major epidemics of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus H5N8 and H5N1 in domestic poultry in France, 2020–2022. Transbound Emerg Dis 69:3160–3166 Rehman S, Effendi MH, Witaningruma AM, Nnabuikeb UE, Bilal M, Abbas A, Abbas RZ, Hussain K (2022) Avian influenza (H5N1) virus, epidemiology and its effects on backyard poultry in Indonesia: a review. F1000Res , 11 Wu T, Perrings C (2018) The live poultry trade and the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza: Regional differences between Europe, West Africa, and Southeast Asia. PLoS ONE 13:e0208197 Chowdhury S, Hossain ME, Ghosh PK, Ghosh S, Hossain MB, Beard C, Rahman M, Rahman MZ (2019) The Pattern of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Outbreaks in South Asia. Trop Med Infect Disease 2019 4:138 Dhama K, Saminathan M, Karthik K, Tiwari R, Shabbir MZ, Kumar N, Malik YS, Singh RK (2015) Avian rotavirus enteritis – an updated review. Veterinary Q 35:142–158 Falcone E, Busi C, Lavazza A, Monini M, Bertoletti M, Canelli E, Vignolo E, Ruggeri FM, Boniotti MB (2015) Molecular characterization of avian rotaviruses circulating in Italian poultry flocks. Avian Pathol 44:509–515 Zhang F, Li Y, Jiang W, Yu X, Zhuang Q, Wang S, Yuan L, Wang K, Sun S, Liu H (2022) Surveillance and genetic diversity analysis of avian astrovirus in China. PLoS ONE 17:e0264308 Quinteros JA, Noormohammadi AH, Lee SW, Browning GF, Diaz-Méndez A (2022) Genomics and pathogenesis of the avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus. Aust Vet J 100:496–512 Allison AB, Kevin Keel M, Philips JE, Cartoceti AN, Munk BA, Nemeth NM, Welsh TI, Thomas JM, Crum JM, Lichtenwalner AB et al (2014) Avian oncogenesis induced by lymphoproliferative disease virus: A neglected or emerging retroviral pathogen? Virology , 450–451, 2–12 Sievers BL, Siegers JY, Cadènes JM, Hyder S, Sparaciari FE, Claes F, Firth C, Horwood PF, Karlsson EA (2024) Smart markets: harnessing the potential of new technologies for endemic and emerging infectious disease surveillance in traditional food markets. J Virol, 98 Dao DT, Coleman KK, Bui VN, Bui AN, Tran LH, Nguyen QD, Than S, Pulscher LA, Marushchak LV, Robie ER et al (2024) High Prevalence of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: A Virus in Vietnam’s Live Bird Markets. Open Forum Infect Dis, 11 Beerens N, Germeraad EA, Venema S, Verheij E, Pritz-Verschuren SBE, Gonzales JL (2021) Comparative pathogenicity and environmental transmission of recent highly pathogenic avian influenza H5 viruses. Emerg Microbes Infect 10:97–108 Filaire F, Bertran K, Gaide N, Valle R, Secula A, Perlas A, Foret-Lucas C, Nofrarías M, Cantero G, Croville G et al (2024) Viral shedding and environmental dispersion of two clade 2.3.4.4b H5 high pathogenicity avian influenza viruses in experimentally infected mule ducks: implications for environmental sampling. Vet Res 55:100 Horwood PF, Horm SV, Yann S, Tok S, Chan M, Suttie A, Phalla Y, Rith S, Siegers JY, San S et al (2023) Aerosol exposure of live bird market workers to viable influenza A/H5N1 and A/H9N2 viruses, Cambodia. Zoonoses Public Health 70:171–175 Ladhani L, Pardon G, Meeuws H, Van Wesenbeeck L, Schmidt K, Stuyver L, Van Der Wijngaart W (2017) Sampling and detection of airborne influenza virus towards point-of-care applications. PLoS ONE 12:e0174314 Mellon G, Rubenstein E, Antoine M, Ferré VM, Gabassi A, Molina JM, Delaugerre C, LeGoff J (2023) Air detection of monkeypox virus in a dedicated outpatient clinic room for monkeypox infection diagnosis. J Infect 86:256–308 Sousan S, Boatman M, Johansen L, Fan M, Roper RL (2024) Comparing and validating air sampling methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection in HVAC ducts of student dorms. Environ Pollut 343:123164 Beck SH, Castillo A, Kinney KA, Zuniga A, Mohammad Z, Lacey RE, King MD (2019) Monitoring of Pathogenic Bioaerosols in Beef Slaughter Facilities Based on Air Sampling and Airflow Modeling. Appl Eng Agric 35:1015–1036 Morvan M, Jacomo A, Lo, Souque C, Wade MJ, Hoffmann T, Pouwels K, Lilley C, Singer AC, Porter J, Evens NP et al (2022) An analysis of 45 large-scale wastewater sites in England to estimate SARS-CoV-2 community prevalence. Nat Commun 2022 13:1:13, 1–9 Wolfe MK, Duong D, Bakker KM, Ammerman M, Mortenson L, Hughes B, Arts P, Lauring AS, Fitzsimmons WJ, Bendall E et al (2022) Wastewater-Based Detection of Two Influenza Outbreaks. Environ Sci Technol Lett 9:687–692 Ko KKK, Chng KR, Nagarajan N (2022) Metagenomics-enabled microbial surveillance. Nat Microbiol 2022 7:4:7, 486–496 Van Rijn AL, Van Boheemen S, Sidorov I, Carbo EC, Pappas N, Mei H, Feltkamp M, Aanerud M, Bakke P, Claas ECJ et al (2019) The respiratory virome and exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PLoS ONE, 14 Doddapaneni H, Cregeen SJ, Sucgang R, Meng Q, Qin X, Avadhanula V, Chao H, Menon V, Nicholson E, Henke D et al (2021) Oligonucleotide capture sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and subgenomic fragments from COVID-19 individuals. PLoS ONE, 16 Yamaguchi J, Olivo A, Laeyendecker O, Forberg K, Ndembi N, Mbanya D, Kaptue L, Quinn TC, Cloherty GA, Rodgers MA et al (2018) Universal Target Capture of HIV Sequences From NGS Libraries. Front Microbiol, 9 Briese T, Kapoor A, Mishra N, Jain K, Kumar A, Jabado OJ, Lipkina I (2015) W. Virome Capture Sequencing Enables Sensitive Viral Diagnosis and Comprehensive Virome Analysis. mBio , 6 Wylie TN, Wylie KM, Herter BN, Storch GA (2015) Enhanced virome sequencing using targeted sequence capture. Genome Res 25:1910–1920 Kalantar KL, Carvalho T, De Bourcy CFA, Dimitrov B, Dingle G, Egger R, Han J, Holmes OB, Juan YF, King R et al (2020) IDseq—An open source cloud-based pipeline and analysis service for metagenomic pathogen detection and monitoring. Gigascience 9:1–14 Shen W, Le S, Li Y, Hu F (2016) SeqKit: A Cross-Platform and Ultrafast Toolkit for FASTA/Q File Manipulation. PLoS ONE 11:e0163962 Md V, Misra S, Li H, Aluru S (2019) Efficient architecture-aware acceleration of BWA-MEM for multicore systems. Proceedings – 2019 IEEE 33rd International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, IPDPS 2019 , 10.1109/IPDPS.2019.00041 Danecek P, Bonfield JK, Liddle J, Marshall J, Ohan V, Pollard MO, Whitwham A, Keane T, McCarthy SA, Davies RM (2021) Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. Gigascience 10:1–4 RStudio Team (2020) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio Dixon P (2003) VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J Veg Sci 14:927–930 Dray S, Dufour AB (2007) The ade4 Package: Implementing the Duality Diagram for Ecologists. J Stat Softw 22:1–20 corr.test: Find the correlations, sample sizes, and probability values… in psych:Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research Knights D, Kuczynski J, Charlson ES, Zaneveld J, Mozer MC, Collman RG, Bushman FD, Knight R, Kelley ST (2011) Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking. Nat Methods 2011 8:9:8, 761–763 Villanueva RAM, Chen ZJ (2019) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Meas (Mahwah N J) 17:160–1672nd edn. Gu Z, Eils R, Schlesner M (2016) Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data. Bioinformatics 32:2847–2849 Gu Z, Gu L, Eils R, Schlesner M, Brors B (2014) circlize Implements and enhances circular visualization in R. Bioinformatics 30:2811–2812 Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410 Arendsee ZW, Baker ALV, Anderson TK (2022) smot: a python package and CLI tool for contextual phylogenetic subsampling. J Open Source Softw 7:4193 Sievers F, Higgins DG (2018) Clustal Omega for making accurate alignments of many protein sequences. Protein Sci 27:135–145 Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T (2009) trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25:1972–1973 Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, Von Haeseler A, Lanfear R, Teeling E (2020) IQ-TREE 2: New Models and Efficient Methods for Phylogenetic Inference in the Genomic Era. Mol Biol Evol 37:1530–1534 Yu G, Smith DK, Zhu H, Guan Y, Lam TTY (2017) ggtree: an r package for visualization and annotation of phylogenetic trees with their covariates and other associated data. Methods Ecol Evol 8:28–36 Suttie A, Tok S, Yann S, Keo P, Horm SV, Roe M, Kaye M, Sorn S, Holl D, Tum S et al (2019) The evolution and genetic diversity of avian influenza A(H9N2) viruses in Cambodia, 2015–2016. PLoS ONE 14:e0225428 Ren SY, Wang WB, Hao YG, Zhang HR, Wang ZC, Chen YL, Gao RD (2020) Stability and infectivity of coronaviruses in inanimate environments. World J Clin Cases 8:1391 Pinon A, Vialette M (2019) Survival of Viruses in Water. Intervirology 61:214–222 Aboubakr HA, Sharafeldin TA, Goyal SM (2021) Stability of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses in the environment and on common touch surfaces and the influence of climatic conditions: A review. Transbound Emerg Dis 68:296–312 Lauterbach SE, Wright CM, Zentkovich MM, Nelson SW, Lorbach JN, Bliss NT, Nolting JM, Pierson RM, King MD, Bowman AS (2018) Detection of influenza A virus from agricultural fair environment: Air and surfaces. Prev Vet Med 153:24–29 Nikitin N, Petrova E, Trifonova E, Karpova O (2014) Influenza Virus Aerosols in the Air and Their Infectiousness. Adv Virol , 2014, 859090 Nardell EA, Nathavitharana RR (2020) Airborne Spread of SARS-CoV-2 and a Potential Role for Air Disinfection. JAMA 324:141–142 Chamseddine A, Soudani N, Kanafani Z, Alameddine I, Dbaibo G, Zaraket H, El-Fadel M (2021) Detection of influenza virus in air samples of patient rooms. J Hosp Infect 108:33–42 Borges JT, Nakada LYK, Maniero MG, Guimarães JR (2021) SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review of indoor air sampling for virus detection. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:40460–40473 Kratzel A, Steiner S, Todt D, V’kovski P, Brueggemann Y, Steinmann J, Steinmann E, Thiel V, Pfaender S (2020) Temperature-dependent surface stability of SARS-CoV-2. J Infect 81:452–482 Sakaguchi H, Wada K, Kajioka J, Watanabe M, Nakano R, Hirose T, Ohta H, Aizawa Y (2010) Maintenance of influenza virus infectivity on the surfaces of personal protective equipment and clothing used in healthcare settings. Environ Health Prev Med 15:344–349 Otter JA, Donskey C, Yezli S, Douthwaite S, Goldenberg SD, Weber DJ (2016) Transmission of SARS and MERS coronaviruses and influenza virus in healthcare settings: the possible role of dry surface contamination. J Hosp Infect 92:235–250 Mercier E, D’Aoust PM, Thakali O, Hegazy N, Jia JJ, Zhang Z, Eid W, Plaza-Diaz J, Kabir MP, Fang W et al (2022) Municipal and neighbourhood level wastewater surveillance and subtyping of an influenza virus outbreak. Sci Rep 2022 12:1:12, 1–11 Wolfe MK, Duong D, Bakker KM, Ammerman M, Mortenson L, Hughes B, Arts P, Lauring AS, Fitzsimmons WJ, Bendall E et al (2022) Wastewater-Based Detection of Two Influenza Outbreaks. Environ Sci Technol Lett 9:687–692 Lowry SA, Wolfe MK, Boehm AB (2023) Respiratory virus concentrations in human excretions that contribute to wastewater: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Water Health 21:831–848 Jones DL, Baluja MQ, Graham DW, Corbishley A, McDonald JE, Malham SK, Hillary LS, Connor TR, Gaze WH, Moura IB et al (2020) Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine and its potential role in person-to-person transmission and the environment-based spread of COVID-19. Sci Total Environ 749:141364 Martin G, Becker DJ, Plowright RK (2018) Environmental persistence of influenza H5N1 is driven by temperature and salinity: Insights from a Bayesian meta-analysis. Front Ecol Evol 6:322449 Spackman E (2023) A Review of the Stability of Avian Influenza Virus in Materials from Poultry Farms. Avian Dis 67:229–236 Mourik K, Sidorov I, Carbo EC, van der Meer D, Boot A, Kroes ACM, Claas ECJ, Boers SA, de Vries JJC (2024) Comparison of the performance of two targeted metagenomic virus capture probe-based methods using reference control materials and clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol, 62 Buddle S, Forrest L, Akinsuyi N, Bernal M, Brooks LM, Venturini T, Miller C, Brown C, Storey JR, Atkinson N et al (2024) L.,. Evaluating metagenomics and targeted approaches for diagnosis and surveillance of viruses. Genome Medicine 2024 16:1 , 16, 1–20 Khieu Borin PSOT (2009) Assessment of poultry markets and sellers in 25. Provinces and Cities of Cambodia Carranza-Flores JM, Padilla-Noriega L, Loza-Rubio E, García-Espinosa G (2013) Prolonged excretion of a low-pathogenicity H5N2 avian influenza virus strain in the Pekin duck. J Vet Sci 14:487–490 Germeraad EA, Sanders P, Hagenaars TJ, De Jong MCM, Beerens N, Gonzales JL (2019) Virus Shedding of Avian Influenza in Poultry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Viruses 2019 11:812 Costa TP, Brown JD, Howerth EW, Stallknecht DE (2011) Variation in viral shedding patterns between different wild bird species infected experimentally with low-pathogenicity avian influenza viruses that originated from wild birds. Avian Pathol 40:119–124 Table Table 1: Sample sizes for domestic poultry and environmental sample types Samples collected n Sample type Poultry 59 Throat Cloacal Chicken 30 15 15 Duck 29 14 15 Environmental 82 Holding area Slaughter area Outide Air 37 13 14 10 Wash water Drinking water Water 28 19 9 Cage 17 Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files SupplementaryInformation.xlsx Supplementary Information SupplementaryFiguresV3.pdf Supplementary Figures Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Nature Communications → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5682962","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Biological Sciences - Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":397473262,"identity":"a0046572-592c-41a9-9a3b-f2b287970da9","order_by":0,"name":"Peter Cronin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Peter","middleName":"","lastName":"Cronin","suffix":""},{"id":397473263,"identity":"c48109df-5bce-4adb-b053-abb2f6194e9e","order_by":1,"name":"Jurre Siegers","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut Pasteur du Cambodge","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jurre","middleName":"","lastName":"Siegers","suffix":""},{"id":397473264,"identity":"b366154b-c10f-4c19-8c4b-2fd53d4d2996","order_by":2,"name":"Vireak Heang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Virology Unit, Institute Pasteur du Cambodge, Pasteur Network, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vireak","middleName":"","lastName":"Heang","suffix":""},{"id":397473265,"identity":"04686ecd-f111-45d5-8cfa-68a2035c8262","order_by":3,"name":"Songha Tok","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Virology Unit, Institute Pasteur du Cambodge, Pasteur Network, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Songha","middleName":"","lastName":"Tok","suffix":""},{"id":397473266,"identity":"accbf8eb-6c3a-474c-a214-f995dd39ab5a","order_by":4,"name":"Sarath Sin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Virology Unit, Institute Pasteur du Cambodge, Pasteur Network, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarath","middleName":"","lastName":"Sin","suffix":""},{"id":397473267,"identity":"e35c1432-9732-4ac1-ab1a-55240c66a77a","order_by":5,"name":"Benjamin Sievers","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"J. Craig Venter Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Benjamin","middleName":"","lastName":"Sievers","suffix":""},{"id":397473268,"identity":"94358542-b917-430f-801f-1f254de912be","order_by":6,"name":"Victor Omondi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Virology Unit, Institute Pasteur du Cambodge, Pasteur Network, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Victor","middleName":"","lastName":"Omondi","suffix":""},{"id":397473269,"identity":"00b07be1-1442-43e4-9512-f918952993e3","order_by":7,"name":"Sithun Nuon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Virology Unit, Institute Pasteur du Cambodge, Pasteur Network, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sithun","middleName":"","lastName":"Nuon","suffix":""},{"id":397473270,"identity":"0e1ee3ce-8971-43d8-82c6-ec9c98d2c218","order_by":8,"name":"Kimtuo Chhel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Virology Unit, Institute Pasteur du Cambodge, Pasteur Network, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kimtuo","middleName":"","lastName":"Chhel","suffix":""},{"id":397473271,"identity":"73b77d35-e589-4633-afc8-bb88cc0e9838","order_by":9,"name":"Janin Nouhin","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4985-8377","institution":"Institut Pasteur in Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Janin","middleName":"","lastName":"Nouhin","suffix":""},{"id":397473272,"identity":"577b151e-47a8-4575-bb78-6eaa58bc2790","order_by":10,"name":"Vutha Chim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Animal Health and Production Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vutha","middleName":"","lastName":"Chim","suffix":""},{"id":397473273,"identity":"910c1924-7384-4b73-953b-19bd538584c6","order_by":11,"name":"Bunnary Seng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Animal Health and Production Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bunnary","middleName":"","lastName":"Seng","suffix":""},{"id":397473274,"identity":"54996f46-714b-4aa2-8cbc-6126c0f66a31","order_by":12,"name":"Makara Hak","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Emergency Center for Transboundary Animal Diseases, Country Office, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Makara","middleName":"","lastName":"Hak","suffix":""},{"id":397473275,"identity":"e02ffd08-9f84-4b28-b40a-2c8cac9e83ea","order_by":13,"name":"Sorn San","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sorn","middleName":"","lastName":"San","suffix":""},{"id":397473276,"identity":"92153a4f-07b7-453c-87e8-47a6979efaba","order_by":14,"name":"Sothyra Tum","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Animal Health and Production Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sothyra","middleName":"","lastName":"Tum","suffix":""},{"id":397473277,"identity":"4ff20b4f-93c1-479a-9842-5036bf844e49","order_by":15,"name":"Filip Claes","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Emergency Center for Transboundary Animal Diseases, Regional Office for Asia Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Filip","middleName":"","lastName":"Claes","suffix":""},{"id":397473278,"identity":"682e1482-0352-495f-b88d-08ab80415bb2","order_by":16,"name":"Cadhla Firth","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cadhla","middleName":"","lastName":"Firth","suffix":""},{"id":397473279,"identity":"1757c5f3-ddb7-4d60-86b5-b22385ac5826","order_by":17,"name":"Yvonne Su","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4349-9211","institution":"Duke-NUS Medical School","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yvonne","middleName":"","lastName":"Su","suffix":""},{"id":397473280,"identity":"01259ec6-3e47-41fc-a84b-c2c8ccbe698a","order_by":18,"name":"Gavin Smith","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5031-468X","institution":"Duke-NUS Medical School","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gavin","middleName":"","lastName":"Smith","suffix":""},{"id":397473261,"identity":"75a4bd61-29ce-4a33-8d86-8453df194c08","order_by":19,"name":"Erik Karlsson","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6004-5671","institution":"Institut Pasteur du Cambodge","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Erik","middleName":"","lastName":"Karlsson","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-12-20 10:10:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5682962/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5682962/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68245-8","type":"published","date":"2026-01-12T05:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":76171008,"identity":"32456e54-232f-47cd-a837-57da9b2036ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-13 05:30:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":151647,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental metagenomics accurately detects circulating poultry pathogens. A) Circular heatmap depicts virus detection between poultry swabs and the environment. Whereby a given virus was found in at least poultry sample a blue cell is shown and whereby that same virus was found in at least one environmental sample at the same time and location an adjacent pink cell is shown. Each track of the heatmap represents one visit to an LBM. B) Boxplot showing the difference in virus abundance between taxa that were successfully detected or undetected from panel A. Statistics were calculated using a Wilcox test. C) Bar plot showing the total number of unique viruses detected in poultry swabs compared to each individual environmental sample at each sampling date. Statistics were calculated using Fishers exact test best all groups. Based on PCoA in Supplementary Figure 5, we calculated the distance of all samples from the median centroid coordinates of D) cloacal and E) oropharyngeal swabs obtained from domestic chickens as well as F) cloacal and G) throat swabs obtained from domestic ducks. Statistics were calculated using a Kruskall-Wallis with Dunns post-hoc test. H) Ridge plot showing the probability of each poultry swab being the source of pathogenic viruses for all environmental samples. Statistics were calculated using a Kruskall-Wallis with Dunns post-hoc test. All P-values obtained were corrected for false-discovery rate (FDR) using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. P values are annotated as follows: P \u0026lt; 0.05 *; P \u0026lt; 0.01 **; P \u0026lt; 0.001***.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Binder11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5682962/v1/f2ceb8f17670ba95757bf9fd.png"},{"id":76171010,"identity":"942daab0-d6c3-4864-b432-2817903d04a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-13 05:30:10","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":306858,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMost avian viral contigs align to environmental contigs. A) Circular heatmap showing the percentage (%) of all avian viral contigs mapping to those assembled from the environment. B) Summary of panel A showing the percentage alignment rate of avian contigs to those \u003cem\u003ede novo \u003c/em\u003eassembled from environmental samples. C) The total number of contigs assembled for each type of poultry swab collected. Alignment rate for D) cloacal and E) throat swabs collected from chickens is shown for each individual environmental sample. Statistics were calculated using a Kruskall-Wallis with Dunns post-hoc test. All P-values obtained were corrected for false-discovery rate (FDR) using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. P values are annotated as follows: P \u0026lt; 0.05 *; P \u0026lt; 0.01 **; P \u0026lt; 0.001***.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Binder12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5682962/v1/d65854235386ef413448bd3e.png"},{"id":76171007,"identity":"b965aa52-07ef-4098-a6f6-276d75be5b46","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-13 05:30:09","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":128463,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental sampling detected highly pathogenic \u003cem\u003eInfluenza A\u003c/em\u003e contigs more often than poultry swabs. A-C) Maximum likelihood phylogenies of the HA subtypes A) H5, B) H6 and C) H9. D) Heatmap showing the detection rate of different HA and NA subtypes across all twelve visits to the respective markets. Ward.d2 hierarchal clustering reveals HA and NA subtype combinations which co-circulated. E-G) Maximum likelihood phylogenies NA \u003cem\u003eInfluenza \u003c/em\u003esubtypes D) N1, E) N2, F) N6. Triangle shaped tips show new sequences generated in the current study from one of two LBMs in Cambodia (which are also highlighted with a red arrow). Circle shaped tips indicate reference sequences. Each tip is coloured based on clade designation shown in the legend accompanying each phylogenetic tree.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Binder13.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5682962/v1/ca0e8f83cd317b265ec3c96d.png"},{"id":76171009,"identity":"1dc8e08d-1f7a-44ea-bb1d-327ec7f243de","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-13 05:30:10","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":84448,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental derived pathogen contigs are a short phylogenetic distance from those identified in poultry swabs. Phylogenetic tree reconstruction of nine avian pathogens successfully detected using environmental metagenomic surveillance inferred using the maximum likelihood method in IQ-TREE. Sequence type is determined by colour and shape of the node. Novel sequences assembled from the environment are shown in green (triangle) while sequences derived from poultry swabs are shown in red (circle). Reference sequences download from NCBI Virus Database are shown in blue (square). All trees represent full length genomes from the respective virus.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Binder14.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5682962/v1/465542dfad93290813378fb4.png"},{"id":102387599,"identity":"97ea45b1-4054-4f73-a040-9c2b4d10594e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-11 08:11:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1510384,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5682962/v1/0b91433f-5304-4488-b0fe-8164112de808.pdf"},{"id":76171006,"identity":"c4139aa4-e533-45cf-aa2c-249e21e80912","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-13 05:30:09","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19341,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supplementary Information","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryInformation.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5682962/v1/3124b06ee8481900e177b869.xlsx"},{"id":76171011,"identity":"62e36ddd-b273-483d-860b-2207663e458f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-13 05:30:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":9399572,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supplementary Figures","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFiguresV3.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5682962/v1/af5051a8adf4f28b84700782.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"Air sampling accurately captures circulating zoonotic viral diversity emerging from poultry live-animal markets","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental surveillance has become an increasingly important strategy for early detection and monitoring of viral pathogens (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Several major disease outbreaks in humans have resulted from zoonotic spillover from animals (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR5 CR6 CR7 CR8\" citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e) making pathogen surveillance at human-animal interfaces such as live-bird markets (LBMs) critical. LBMs are common in Asia, holding critical socio-economic significance. However, they are also marked by the prevalence of both endemic and emerging infectious diseases of One Health importance, including highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus (AIV) H5N1 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). Highly pathogenic A/H5N1 has a mortality rate exceeding 50% in humans (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e) while also imposing a significant economic burden on global poultry industries (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e). Outbreaks of pathogens like A/H5N1 in poultry often lead to severe economic losses affecting livelihoods reliant on small scale poultry production (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR17\" citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). Other pathogenic avian viruses, including members of the \u003cem\u003eRotavirus\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cem\u003eAvastrovirus\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cem\u003eGammacoronavirus\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) and \u003cem\u003eAlpharetrovirus\u003c/em\u003e genera (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e) also cause substantial losses in domestic poultry. Improving pathogen surveillance systems at LBMs is essential to infectious disease monitoring, risk mitigation, and outbreak response, especially in developing regions of the world.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePathogen monitoring at LBMs has traditionally relied on random testing of individual animals via oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs. However, this approach may miss circulating pathogens if the selected bird is not infected when sampled, thus limiting the probability of detection. In addition, traditional sampling strategies are time-consuming, costly, and pose significant occupational biosafety risks while compromising animal welfare (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e). ES, particularly air, can provide a more comprehensive, safe, and easier approach to pathogen surveillance. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that poultry virus shedding can result in contamination of the surrounding environment, with the environment becoming a reservoir of pathogens exacerbated by insufficient biosecurity measures at LBMs (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e). Previously, we demonstrated through air sampling that workers at an LBM in Cambodia were exposed to influenza subtypes A/H5N1 and A/H9N2 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e) and this approach has also proven successful in accurately detecting pathogens in other settings (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30 CR31\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, ES can be used to detect influenza A virus subtypes from sources such as the wash water used to clean bird carcasses after de-feathering at LBMs (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe hypothesize that ES could supplement traditional poultry pathogen surveillance and provide insight into risks of environmental exposure for LBM workers and consumers. This information is crucial for mitigating risks of pathogen transmission between birds and throughout the poultry supply chain, and for preventing spillover to humans. However, it remains unknown whether metagenomic data from ES in LBMs accurately reflects data from traditional poultry samples used for pathogen surveillance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo date, environmental pathogen surveillance has largely relied on PCR-based methods, often used for monitoring of select human pathogens (e.g., influenza A and SARS-CoV-2) in wastewater and sewage (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). Although these approaches offer high sensitivity and specificity, they are limited in the range of viruses they can detect. Unbiased metagenomics has emerged as a method with a much broader target range for virus identification and surveillance, allowing detection of a diverse array of known and novel pathogens (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e). One major challenge using metagenomics is the low amount of viral nucleic acid present in most sample types, compared to higher levels of host and environmental nucleic material. Methods to reduce non-target sequences in metagenomic data have been explored, but vary in effectiveness (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e). However, viral enrichment using probe hybridization methods has been shown to significantly improve sensitivity across different sample types, enabling the accurate detection of low abundance and/or low-frequency virus variants (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR38 CR39\" citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, we compared the performance of targeted virus capture probe-based metagenomics on several different ES types versus traditional poultry swab samples from LBMs for the detection and surveillance of avian pathogens. We hypothesize that using metagenomics on ES may offer a more robust approach to facilitate the early detection of virus transmission at high-risk human-animal interfaces, allowing for more rapid and effective risk mitigation measures to take place.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eStudy design and sample collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween January 2022 and April 2023 samples were collected on 12 occasions in Cambodia at Orussey market, Phnom Penh province and Daun Keo market, Takeo province (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). Individual animal samples consisted of oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs collected from an domestic ducks and chickens. These were combined into pools of ten individual cloacal or oropharyngeal swabs for sample processing, with ducks and chickens pooled separately. ES comprised air, carcass wash water, cage swabs, and drinking water. Air samples were collected for three hours at three locations at each market (the slaughter area, the poultry holding/storage area, and a \u0026ldquo;control area\u0026rdquo; - either the food storage area located in a separate building or \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50m away from the LBM) using AerosolSenseTM Samplers (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Air was sampled through an omnidirectional inlet at a rate of 200 L/min. Collected material was eluted from each air sampler by rinsing and vortexing the collection matrix in 2 mL of viral transport medium. Carcass wash water (50 mL) used to wash poultry carcasses after slaughter and de-feathering processes was collected from the slaughter area. Cage swabs were collected from selected cages in the poultry holding area of the market. Where available, 2 mL of poultry drinking water from inside poultry cages was collected. All samples were transported at 4\u0026deg;C to Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, aliquoted into tubes on arrival and stored at \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;80\u0026deg;C until further processing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRNA extraction, library preparation and next-generation sequencing\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRNA was extracted from each sample pool using the Direct-zol RNA Miniprep Kit (Zymo Research, California, USA) according to the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s protocol and eluted in 50uL of nuclease-free water. Sequencing libraries were generated using the Twist Library Preparation Enzymatic Fragmentation (EF) kit 2.0 (Twist Bioscience, San Francisco, California, USA) and the Twist Comprehensive Viral Research Panel (CVRP), according to the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s protocol (Twist Total Nucleic Acids Library Preparation EF Kit 2.0 for Viral Pathogen Detection and Characterization Protocol and Twist Target Enrichment Standard Hybridization v1 protocol). Briefly, extracted RNA was converted to cDNA using the ProtoScript II First Strand cDNA Synthesis kit (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA) and Random Primer 6 (S1230S) from New England Biolabs (NEB). The NEB Next Ultra II Non-Directional RNA second Strand Synthesis kit (E6111S) was subsequently used to convert the single-stranded cDNA to double stranded DNA (dsDNA). Illumina TruSeq-compatible libraries were generated using the Twist Library Preparation EF kit 2.0 and combined into pools of six libraries. The pooled libraries were enriched by hybridization capture using the Twist Comprehensive Viral Research Panel (CVRP). Following enrichment, libraries were pooled in equimolar ratios, diluted and denatured prior to sequencing according to the standard MiSeq System Denature and Dilute Libraries Guide (Document # 15039740v10). Sequencing was performed Finally, the library was sequenced to generate paired-end 75bp reads using a MiSeq V3 reagent kit (Illumina, MS-102-3001) on the Illumina MiSeq System.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcessing of viral sequencing data\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRaw sequencing data was processed using the CZ ID pipeline (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://czid.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) which is an open-source cloud-based metagenomics pipeline for global pathogen detection and monitoring (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e). Viral abundance was estimated as reads per million (RPM) relative to the total number of reads which mapped to virus sequences, while \u003cem\u003ede novo\u003c/em\u003e assembled contigs were directly downloaded from the CZ ID website. SeqKit was used for sequence length filtering and FASTA file manipulation (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e). Contigs \u003cem\u003ede novo\u003c/em\u003e assembled from poultry swabs were mapped to those assembled in environmental samples using BWA-MEM2 (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e). Alignment rates (percentage reads mapped) were calculated using Samtools (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBiostatistical analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll biostatistical analyses were carried out in Rstudio (version 4.4.0) (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e). \u0026Beta;-diversity (Jaccard Index) was calculated using the vegdist function in the vegan package (version 2.7) (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e). To statistically test for differences between sample types we employed a Permutational Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) test which was calculated using the adonis function also in the vegan package. Pairwise PERMANOVAs were calculated using the pairwise.adonis function. To visualise virome composition between sample types we used principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) using the dudi.pco function of the ade4 package (version 1.7) (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e). To perform a quantitative comparative evaluation of virome composition we employed a median centroid testing methodology based on the Jaccard distances from a PCoA. This approach sees the median PCo1 and PCo2 coordinates calculated (median centroid) for each poultry swab sample type and the distance of all other samples from this point is subsequently determined. Spearman correlations were calculated using the corr.test function in the psych package (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e). In order to estimate the proportion of viruses in ES that are likely to have come from each poultry swab type source tracking analysis was conducted using the R package SourceTracker (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e). All plots used to visualise data were produced using the ggplot2 package in R (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e). Heatmaps were produced using either the ComplexHeatmap package(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e) or the circlize package (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e). Statistical significance was determined using the non-parametric Wilcox test between two comparative groups. When statistical significance was being determined between three or more comparative groups the non-parametric Kruskall-Wallis with Dunns post-hoc test was employed using the PMCMRplus package. All P-values obtained were corrected for false-discovery rate (FDR) using the Benjamini-Hochberg method (p.adjust function in R). P values are annotated as follows unless otherwise stated: P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 *; P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01 **; P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001***.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhylogenetic tree reconstruction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor phylogenetic tree reconstruction of influenza gene segments from \u003cem\u003ede novo\u003c/em\u003e assembled contigs all available reference sequences were downloaded from the NCBI Influenza database and GISAID from January 1, 2014 to July 1, 2024. From our metagenomic data, only influenza contigs \u003cem\u003ede novo\u003c/em\u003e assembled through the CZ ID pipeline and greater than 200bp were included for analysis. Contig taxonomy was determined using blast (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e). Reference datasets were subsampled to 500 sequences using SMOT(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e) and combined with sequences identified in the current study. For all other viruses, all available full length reference sequences of a given virus were downloaded from the NCBI virus database. Multiple nucleotide sequence alignments were carried out using Clustal Omega using default settings (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e). The resulting multiple sequence alignments were manually curated, and erroneous or ambiguous regions were trimmed to ensure alignment accuracy using trimAl (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e). Maximum likelihood phylogenies for each gene segment or genome were individually reconstructed using IQ-TREE (version 2.1.4)(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e) with the best fit nucleotide substitution model. No bootstrapping or other estimates of nodal support were applied. Phylogenetic trees were plotted in R using the ggtree package (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEnvironmental metagenomics accurately detects circulating pathogens of domestic poultry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the performance of metagenomics for viral pathogen detection using ES compared to poultry swabs, we first calculated the detection rates of each viral pathogen among both sample types. A total of 84 viruses were found at least once in domestic poultry swabs across the 12 sampling dates at the two LBMs in Cambodia (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA). We showed that the majority of viruses found in poultry swabs could also be found in corresponding ES at each timepoint with detection rates consistently ranging between 70% and 90% (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;2A and 2B). Common avian respiratory viruses including avian influenza and avian coronavirus were frequently identified in ES (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA). While this was also true for other pathogens including Rous sarcoma virus, avian leukosis virus, avian orthoreovirus (\u003cem\u003eRetroviridae\u003c/em\u003e), chicken astrovirus (\u003cem\u003eAstroviridae\u003c/em\u003e). Virus sequences that were not be detected in ES were in significantly lower abundance in poultry swabs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB) and were in circulation at the LBMs less often than those successfully detected (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). Only two respiratory viruses were not found in the environment that were found in poultry swabs (Gull coronavirus, and \u003cem\u003eDeltacoronavirus\u003c/em\u003e sp.). Other undetected viruses either infect the gastrointestinal tract (viruses in the \u003cem\u003eAstroviridae\u003c/em\u003e families) or were oncoviruses (including avian sarcoma virus CT10, Y73 sarcoma virus and avian retrovirus) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA). Importantly, there was no association between taxonomic family and detection in ES. For example, although avastrovirus 3 and astrovirus HK-2014 could not be found in the environment, several other viruses in the \u003cem\u003eAstroviridae\u003c/em\u003e family were successfully identified in both poultry swabs and ES. In addition, we observed remarkable consistency in the performance of environmental metagenomic surveillance at the LBM. Taxa detected in poultry swabs and the environment were consistently co-detected regardless of when and where they were circulating.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe next evaluated the performance of each individual environmental sample type in the detection of corresponding poultry viruses. Air samples collected from the slaughter and holding area as well as cage swabs contained significantly more avian viruses than air from outside the market, wash water or drinking water (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;4A and 4B). These findings were consistent between both sampling locations. Furthermore, the total number of viruses detected in each individual ES was significantly less than the total number found in poultry swabs at each sampling date (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eC), suggesting that a variety of sample types are required to accurately capture the most viral viruses from poultry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrincipal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of b-diversity (Jaccard distance) focusing only on the avian viruses identified in this study (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA) revealed statistically significant virome separation between the groups after controlling for location and time (PERMANOVA\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001*** and R2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.037) (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;5). Pairwise PERMANOVA of each individual comparison revealed no significant differences between ES types including cage swabs, drinking water and air samples from the holding area and slaughter area (Supplementary File 1). Interestingly, air samples from outside the LBM, as well as wash water, were significantly different from all other sample types. Both cloacal and oropharyngeal swabs collected from chickens had significantly different virome compositions compared to the same swab types from ducks (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;5). Given the observed differences in virome composition between poultry swab types we wanted to evaluate the relationship/performance with each samples type individually. Thus, based on the PCoA in Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;5, we calculated the median coordinates (PCo1 and PCo2) of each poultry swab (cloacal and throat from both domestic ducks and chickens) and subsequently measured the distance of all samples from each point (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eD-G). Using this quantitative comparative evaluation of virome composition we show that no significant difference could be detected between cloacal samples from chickens and samples from drinking water, cage swabs as well as air from both the slaughter and holding area (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eD). Similar findings were observed when comparing throat swabs from chickens with drinking water, cage swabs and wash water, although air samples were a significantly larger distance by this measure (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eE). Interestingly, no difference could be detected between wash water and throat or cloacal swabs from ducks when comparing their respective distances from each median centroid (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eF-G).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo better understand why specific viruses were not detected in ES, we first identified the poultry swab type most associated with undetected taxa. To do this, we calculated Spearman correlations between viral abundance (RPM) and the distance from each poultry swab median centroid as calculated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eD-G, comparing the results between detected and undetected taxa identified in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA. We found that viruses that were not identified through environmental sampling (undetected) were associated with the virome of throat and cloacal duck samples (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;6A and 6B). In both cases, undetected viruses tended to have more negative correlations than those successfully detected suggesting their abundance is higher the shorter the distance to the median centroids of duck samples. The opposite trend was reported for cloacal swabs in chickens which had a strong association with taxa successfully detected in poultry swabs (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;6C). However, no significant difference could be found for throat swabs in chickens (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;6D). Using a Bayesian approach, we conducted source tracking analysis to estimate the proportion of viruses in ES that are likely to have come from each poultry swab type (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eH). We found that cloacal swabs from chickens were identified as the dominant source of virus composition for all ES. The probability of cloacal swabs from chickens contributing to the environmental virome composition was significantly higher compared to throat swabs from chickens as well as both sample types from ducks (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eH).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, ES analysed using targeted metagenomics revealed an additional 50 viruses which were not found through traditional poultry swab sampling (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;7). While the majority of these viruses may be from alternative sources (such as arboviruses or porcine viruses), several avian viruses were also detected, including goose aviadenovirus A. duck adenovirus 4, pigeon circovirus, shelduck picobirnavirus II and avian dependoparvovirus 1. Metagenomics on ES also detected the arbovirus dengue virus 3 as well as the common human respiratory pathogen \u003cem\u003eRhinovirus A1\u003c/em\u003e (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;7). Importantly, this highlights a major advantage of ES in facilitating the detection of viruses which may be missed by traditional sampling methods or circulating pathogens from other sources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, these findings suggest that the environmental sampling conducted at LBMs performs better at detecting chicken viruses than those infecting ducks, while cloacal-derived chicken viruses appear to be a major source for the environmental pathogens in LBMs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMost viral contigs from poultry align to environmental contigs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we aimed to assess whether \u003cem\u003ede novo\u003c/em\u003e assembled viral contigs from ES were an accurate representation of those found in poultry swab samples. We found that the majority of contigs (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;200bp) from direct poultry samples mapped to those from ES (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). Interestingly, the proportion of viral contigs between throat and cloacal swabs obtained from chickens were similar (not statistically significant, P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB). However, both sample types had a significantly greater percentage of successfully mapped viral contigs than throat/cloacal swabs obtained from ducks. In addition to having a lower percentage of mapped viral contigs, cloacal and throat samples obtained from ducks yielded significantly fewer viral contigs than those from chickens (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eC). For both throat and cloacal swabs obtained from chickens, the highest percentage of viral contigs was shown to map to the ES air (slaughter and holding) and cage swabs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eD-E). Large variation in the percentage of viral contigs mapped was observed between air samples collected from outside the LBMs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eD-E). No significant differences could be determined between the percentage of viral contigs mapped between ES and duck (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;8A and 8B). Overall, these findings confirm differences in the performance of ES for different bird species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEnvironmental samples yielded highly pathogenic influenza A contigs more often than poultry swabs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross the length of the sampling period, at both LBM locations, we identified four different influenza hemagglutinin (HA) subtypes in ducks and chickens including H5, H6, H7 and H9 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA-C and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;9\u0026ndash;13). H5 clade 2.3.4.4b was found on three separate visits to the market (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;9). However, only once was this H5 clade identified through both traditional poultry swab sampling and corresponding ES, while 2.3.4.4b was found in wash water, cage swabs, and air samples at two other dates independent of avian sampling (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;9). Similar findings occurred for clade 2.3.2.1c, which was detected at LBMs on four separate sampling visits (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;10). On one occasion, both clade 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b were detected in eight different ES (4 air, 2 cage swabs and 2 wash water samples), suggesting high prevalence in birds coming into the market, and significant environmental contamination (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD). However, no sequences were identified through direct animal sampling on this occasion, highlighting the versatility of environmental sampling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn total, HA subtype H6 was found in 27 samples across the study, with both the ST2853-like and HN57-like clade detected. The HN57-like clade was found in ducks but was not detected in corresponding ES (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;12), and this was the only detection of the HN57-like clade of H6 influenza in this study. On six separate sampling visits, the ST2853-like H6 clade was successfully sequenced from poultry swabs as well as air samples and carcass wash water (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;11). On one visit, H6 was detected in air but not in the corresponding poultry swabs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD). The Eurasian avian lineage of H7 HA was only found once and was sequenced from both air and poultry samples at the same time and place (Supplementary Figs.\u0026nbsp;13 and 14). H9 HA was the predominant HA subtype detected, with a total of 43 positive samples across all 12 visits (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eC and Supplementary Figs.\u0026nbsp;15 and 16). On seven different sampling visits, H9 was identified in both poultry samples and ES. Importantly, on four separate sampling visits, H9 sequences were found in data from ES but were not identified in data from poultry swabs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD). The opposite trend was also reported, whereby H9 sequences were detected in duck samples but were not observed in any ES (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1). Overall, metagenomics using ES at LBMs detected circulating influenza A subtypes more often than metagenomics using traditional poultry swabs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree different neuraminidase (NA) gene subtypes were identified at LBMs in this study including N1, N2 and N6 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD-F). In line with H5 HA results, we identified both the 2.3.4.4b and the 2.3.2.1c clade of N1 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eE and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;17\u0026ndash;19). The 2.3.4.4b N1 clade was only detected in poultry swabs and ES (drinking water and air) on two visits (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD and Supplementary Figs.\u0026nbsp;17 and 18). Six different ES yielded the detection of both H5 and N1 genes (representing the 2.3.4.4b and 2.3.2.1c clades) on December 23, 2022, at the LBM in Takeo province. N2 was the most common NA subtype found throughout the study and was consistently co-detected in both poultry swabs and ES (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eF and Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;20). In line with other findings, N6 sequences of the H5 Eurasian lineage were also consistently co-detected in both poultry samples and ES (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eG and Supplementary Figs.\u0026nbsp;22 and 23). To further confirm the presence of full genomes of influenza A in our dataset, two internal genes were selected for analysis (PB2 and PA). In line with the findings for HA and NA, both PB2 and PA sequences \u003cem\u003ede novo\u003c/em\u003e assembled from ES corresponded to those found in poultry swabs at each sampling timepoint (Supplementary Figs.\u0026nbsp;24 and 25).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHierarchal clustering based on influenza HA and NA subtype detection revealed that the HA H9 commonly co-occurred with N2 at both LBMs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eH). Using this approach, we were also able to infer that HA H6 (ST2853-like clade) co-occurred mostly with N6 while both H5 clades 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b co-occurred with N1 clades of the same subtype. While by nature metagenomic sequencing and \u003cem\u003ede novo\u003c/em\u003e assembly of viral influenza A contigs from the environment and pooled poultry samples makes full length genome identification impossible for segmented RNA viruses, hierarchal clustering of detection patterns allows us to infer (co)-circulating subtypes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEnvironmental sample-derived contigs representing important avian pathogens are related to those identified in poultry swabs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven that \u003cem\u003ede novo\u003c/em\u003e assembled influenza sequences from ES accurately represent those detected in poultry swabs, we assessed if environmentally-derived sequences from other viruses also represented those identified from poultry sampling. Phylogenetic trees were constructed for nine different pathogenic avian viruses within the families \u003cem\u003eAstroviridae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCoronaviridae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAdenoviridae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eRetroviridae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePneumoviridae\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ePicobirnaviridae\u003c/em\u003e. The phylogeny of common oncogenic pathogens in the genus \u003cem\u003eAlpharetrovirus (family Retroviridae)\u003c/em\u003e highlighted that sequences from poultry swabs were a short phylogenetic distance from ES sequences for three different viruses, namely, Avian leukosis virus, Avian myeloblastosis virus, and Rous sarcoma virus (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA-C). This observation was also confirmed for Avastrovirus 1; however, ES also resulted in a greater number of contigs representing this virus than poultry swabs. Sequences from two different \u003cem\u003eGamacoronaviruses (\u003c/em\u003eAvian coronavirus and Duck coronavirus\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e also exhibited high similarity between poultry and environmental contigs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eE-F). Importantly, the performance of ES was consistent regardless of which clade poultry swab derived contigs placed in the tree. Further analysis of both chicken picobirnavirus and a member of the \u003cem\u003ePneumoviridae\u003c/em\u003e family (Avian metapneumovirus) highlight ES as a robust method for accurately capturing avian viral sequences (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eG-H). For the virus Fowl aviadenovirus D, we report a large number of sequences obtained from the LBMs that group into a distinct clade, separate from the majority of available reference sequences (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eI). However, phylogenetic inference for Fowl aviadenovirus D again shows the that ES viral contigs are highly similar to those from traditional poultry swab sampling (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eI). Overall, these findings highlight the performance of environmental metagenomic surveillance as a tool for accurate detection of poultry pathogens.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eHere we demonstrate that using targeted probe-enriched metagenomics on environmental surveillance samples can be an effective approach to replace targeted probe-enriched metagenomics on direct poultry swab samples for detecting viral sequences at LBMs. We found a strong association between viruses identified through poultry swabs and those detected in the surrounding environment. Phylogenetic analyses revealed high sequence similarity between viral contigs assembled from both sample types. Notably, metagenomics using ES detected AIV H5 clades 2.3.2.1c and 2.3.4.4b more frequently than metagenomics using traditional swabs. The sampling and analysis methodologies described have the potential to enable faster responses to disease outbreaks at LBMs, offering a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to conventional pathogen surveillance, especially in high-risk settings such as LBMs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious work on pandemic respiratory viruses, including influenza A viruses and SARS-CoV-2, has shown that these viruses can remain infectious for extended periods outside the host (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR61\" citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e), surviving in various environmental conditions and mediums such as air (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR64 CR65 CR66\" citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e), inanimate surfaces (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR69\" citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e), and wastewater (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR72 CR73\" citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e). While similar environmental persistence has been reported for AIVs, limited information is available about other avian pathogens (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, detection of multiple avian pathogens from several viral families by metagenomics in the LBM environment demonstrates that ES is a useful method detection of sample collection in such settings. Furthermore, analysis of ES facilitated the detection of over 50 viruses that were not found in poultry swabs. While poultry may have been the host for some for these viruses, the majority of viruses may be from alternative sources/hosts yet still pose a significant threat to human and animal health. Importantly, this finding highlights the expanded surveillance coverage provided by ES, allowing the identification of pathogens which may otherwise go undetected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings show that avian pathogen viral nucleic acids persist outside the host in LBMs, possibly increasing the risk of infection of naive poultry through indirect transmission routes. Airborne transmission emerged as a particularly concerning pathway, as air from slaughter and holding areas contained more sequences from poultry viruses than other ES. Moreover, air samples collected near food stalls adjacent to the poultry processing area also contained avian viral sequences. These results imply that market employees, consumers, and bystanders may be at increased risk of infection via airborne transmission. These findings emphasize the argument for improved air quality and the physical separation of slaughter areas to mitigate the potential spread of poultry viruses. However, further studies are needed to determine if the nucleic acids detected in environmental samples represent viable, infectious viruses capable of replication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough each individual ES yielded fewer viruses compared to poultry swabs, ES exhibited high specificity in detecting viruses from different poultry swab types. For instance, chicken pathogens were strongly associated with air, cage swabs, and drinking water, while duck pathogens were more often detected in carcass wash water and oropharyngeal swabs. These results highlight the need for sampling diverse environmental types to maximize pathogen detection efficiency, particularly in markets with multiple bird species are present at different densities/quantities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLBMs typically experience rapid turnover of poultry, with new batches arriving daily from multiple suppliers. Traditional random poultry sampling methods often fail to capture the full range of circulating viruses, as they rely on the assumption that sampled birds are infected. In contrast, our study shows that ES detects AIVs more frequently than traditional sampling. Despite the use of probe hybridization to enrich viral nucleic acids and improve sensitivity, some low-abundance taxa found in poultry swabs were undetected in environmental samples. These viruses were rare in the LBM during the study period, suggesting that low infection and replication rates may limit their environmental detection. Even with viral enrichment, some pathogens may fall below the detection threshold in environmental samples (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUndetected avian pathogens were primarily associated with the throat and cloacal virome of ducks, while ES was more effective at capturing chicken pathogens. This may in part be explained by a larger quantity of chickens being sold at the particular LBMs sampled (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e). Another explanation for this may be variations in virus shedding patterns between species (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR81\" citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e). Previous meta-analysis has shown that chickens shed higher concentrations of certain influenza subtypes and other viruses through the cloaca compared to ducks (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e). Our study supports these findings, with the cloaca of chickens emerging as the predominant source of viral pathogens in ES.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, ES offers a safer, more cost effective and comprehensive alternative to traditional sampling methods, reducing both biosafety risks and animal welfare concerns associated with pathogen monitoring. Indeed, fewer samples are needed to understand an overview of the market virome and viruses which are not present in randomly sampled poultry can be detected. The framework used in this study could be adapted for other human-animal interfaces to strengthen pathogen surveillance systems and mitigate disease risks in similar settings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics statement All sample collections conducted for this study adhered to ethical guidelines and were carried out in collaboration with the National Animal Health and Production Institute. The collections were conducted under protocols approved by the National Ethics Committee for Health Research (NECHR) under the Ministry of Health, Cambodia, with approval numbers NECHR013, NECHR143, NECHR149, and NECHR320 approved in 2021 and 2022. Cambodia does not have a specific animal ethics review board; however, further informal approvals for animal sample collections are given by the General Directorate of Animal Health and Production under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe investigators thank everyone involved in the critical discussions and review of this manuscript. They also thank everyone involved in live bird market and influenza surveillance and response in the Kingdom of Cambodia including teams at the National Institute for Public Health, Cambodian Communicable Disease Control Department, Ministry of Health, National Animal Health and Production Institute, General Directorate of Animal Health and Production, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, World Health Organization, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, provincial health and agriculture directors, market managers, middlemen, vendors, and sellers from the live bird markets, and the Virology Unit at Institut Pasteur du Cambodge who contributed to this study. The text as published does not necessarily represent the official view of US-CDC, WHO, or FAO.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch reported in this publication was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-049293), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases under subaward #12-312-0217530 issued under prime award #1U01AI151378-01, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or of the FAO.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Data curation: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Formal analysis: P.C., J.Y.S., and V.H. Funding acquisition: J.Y.S., V.H., C.F., and E.A.K. Investigation: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., S. Tok, S. Sin, B. Sievers, V.O., S.N., K.C., V.C., B. Seng, M.H., S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Methodology: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Project administration: B. Seng, M.H., S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Resources: J.Y.S., M.H., F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Software: P.C. Supervision: B. Seng, S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Validation: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Visualization: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Writing - original draft: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. Writing - review \u0026amp; editing: P.C., J.Y.S., V.H., S. Tok, S. Sin, B. Sievers, V.O., S.N., K.C., V.C., B. Seng, M.H., S. San, S. Tum, F.F.C., C.F., Y.C.F.S., G.J.D.S., and E.A.K. All authors substantially contributed to the discussion of content.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData used in this study is publicly available under accession number PRJEB83776.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeccia J, Zulli A, Brackney DE, Grubaugh ND, Kaplan EH, Casanovas-Massana A, Ko AI, Malik AA, Wang D, Wang M et al (2020) Measurement of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater tracks community infection dynamics. Nat Biotechnol 2020 38:10:38, 1164\u0026ndash;1167\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoker RJ, Hunter BM, Rudge JW, Liverani M, Hanvoravongchai P (2011) Emerging infectious diseases in southeast Asia: Regional challenges to control. Lancet 377:599\u0026ndash;609\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKitajima M, Ahmed W, Bibby K, Carducci A, Gerba CP, Hamilton KA, Haramoto E, Rose JB (2020) SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater: State of the knowledge and research needs. Sci Total Environ 739:139076\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeifels M, Khalilur Rahman O, Sam I-C, Cheng D, Chua FJD, Nainani D, Kim SY, Ng WJ, Kwok WC, Sirikanchana K et al (2022) The one health perspective to improve environmental surveillance of zoonotic viruses: lessons from COVID-19 and outlook beyond. \u003cem\u003eISME Communications\u003c/em\u003e, 2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharan M, Vijay D, Yadav JP, Bedi JS, Dhaka P (2023) Surveillance and response strategies for zoonotic diseases: a comprehensive review. Sci One Health 2:100050\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChan JFW, Lau SKP, To KKW, Cheng VCC, Woo PCY, Yue KY (2015) Middle East Respiratory syndrome coronavirus: Another zoonotic betacoronavirus causing SARS-like disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 28:465\u0026ndash;522\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalsh MG (2015) Mapping the risk of Nipah virus spillover into human populations in South and Southeast Asia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 109:563\u0026ndash;571\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRappole JH, Derrickson SR, Hub\u0026aacute;lek Z (2000) Migratory birds and spread of West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphere. Emerg Infect Dis 6:319\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeroy EM, Epelboin A, Mondonge V, Pourrut X, Gonzalez JP, Muyembe-Tamfum JJ, Formenty P (2009) Human ebola outbreak resulting from direct exposure to fruit bats in Luebo, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2007. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis 9:723\u0026ndash;728\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurner JCM, Feeroz MM, Hasan MK, Akhtar S, Walker D, Seiler P, Barman S, Franks J, Jones-Engel L, McKenzie P et al (2017) Insight into live bird markets of Bangladesh: an overview of the dynamics of transmission of H5N1 and H9N2 avian influenza viruses. Emerg Microbes Infect, 6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorm SV, Tarantola A, Rith S, Ly S, Gambaretti J, Duong V, Phalla Y, Sorn S, Holl D, Allal L et al (2016) Intense circulation of A/H5N1 and other avian influenza viruses in Cambodian live-bird markets with serological evidence of sub-clinical human infections. Emerg Microbes Infect 5:1\u0026ndash;9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWille M, Barr IG (2022) Resurgence of avian influenza virus. Sci (1979) 376:459\u0026ndash;460\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Tawfiq JA, Tirupathi R, Temsah MH (2024) Feathered fears: Could avian H5N1 influenza be the next pandemic threat of disease X? New Microbes New Infect, 59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShi J, Zeng X, Cui P, Yan C, Chen H (2023) Alarming situation of emerging H5 and H7 avian influenza and effective control strategies. Emerg Microbes Infect, 12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLambert S, Durand B, Andraud M, Delacourt R, Scoizec A, Le Bouquin S, Rautureau S, Bauzile B, Guinat C, Fourtune L et al (2022) Two major epidemics of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus H5N8 and H5N1 in domestic poultry in France, 2020\u0026ndash;2022. Transbound Emerg Dis 69:3160\u0026ndash;3166\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRehman S, Effendi MH, Witaningruma AM, Nnabuikeb UE, Bilal M, Abbas A, Abbas RZ, Hussain K (2022) Avian influenza (H5N1) virus, epidemiology and its effects on backyard poultry in Indonesia: a review. \u003cem\u003eF1000Res\u003c/em\u003e, 11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu T, Perrings C (2018) The live poultry trade and the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza: Regional differences between Europe, West Africa, and Southeast Asia. PLoS ONE 13:e0208197\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChowdhury S, Hossain ME, Ghosh PK, Ghosh S, Hossain MB, Beard C, Rahman M, Rahman MZ (2019) The Pattern of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Outbreaks in South Asia. Trop Med Infect Disease 2019 4:138\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDhama K, Saminathan M, Karthik K, Tiwari R, Shabbir MZ, Kumar N, Malik YS, Singh RK (2015) Avian rotavirus enteritis \u0026ndash; an updated review. Veterinary Q 35:142\u0026ndash;158\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFalcone E, Busi C, Lavazza A, Monini M, Bertoletti M, Canelli E, Vignolo E, Ruggeri FM, Boniotti MB (2015) Molecular characterization of avian rotaviruses circulating in Italian poultry flocks. Avian Pathol 44:509\u0026ndash;515\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang F, Li Y, Jiang W, Yu X, Zhuang Q, Wang S, Yuan L, Wang K, Sun S, Liu H (2022) Surveillance and genetic diversity analysis of avian astrovirus in China. PLoS ONE 17:e0264308\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuinteros JA, Noormohammadi AH, Lee SW, Browning GF, Diaz-M\u0026eacute;ndez A (2022) Genomics and pathogenesis of the avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus. Aust Vet J 100:496\u0026ndash;512\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAllison AB, Kevin Keel M, Philips JE, Cartoceti AN, Munk BA, Nemeth NM, Welsh TI, Thomas JM, Crum JM, Lichtenwalner AB et al (2014) Avian oncogenesis induced by lymphoproliferative disease virus: A neglected or emerging retroviral pathogen? \u003cem\u003eVirology\u003c/em\u003e, 450\u0026ndash;451, 2\u0026ndash;12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSievers BL, Siegers JY, Cad\u0026egrave;nes JM, Hyder S, Sparaciari FE, Claes F, Firth C, Horwood PF, Karlsson EA (2024) Smart markets: harnessing the potential of new technologies for endemic and emerging infectious disease surveillance in traditional food markets. J Virol, 98\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDao DT, Coleman KK, Bui VN, Bui AN, Tran LH, Nguyen QD, Than S, Pulscher LA, Marushchak LV, Robie ER et al (2024) High Prevalence of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: A Virus in Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s Live Bird Markets. Open Forum Infect Dis, 11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeerens N, Germeraad EA, Venema S, Verheij E, Pritz-Verschuren SBE, Gonzales JL (2021) Comparative pathogenicity and environmental transmission of recent highly pathogenic avian influenza H5 viruses. Emerg Microbes Infect 10:97\u0026ndash;108\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFilaire F, Bertran K, Gaide N, Valle R, Secula A, Perlas A, Foret-Lucas C, Nofrar\u0026iacute;as M, Cantero G, Croville G et al (2024) Viral shedding and environmental dispersion of two clade 2.3.4.4b H5 high pathogenicity avian influenza viruses in experimentally infected mule ducks: implications for environmental sampling. Vet Res 55:100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorwood PF, Horm SV, Yann S, Tok S, Chan M, Suttie A, Phalla Y, Rith S, Siegers JY, San S et al (2023) Aerosol exposure of live bird market workers to viable influenza A/H5N1 and A/H9N2 viruses, Cambodia. Zoonoses Public Health 70:171\u0026ndash;175\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLadhani L, Pardon G, Meeuws H, Van Wesenbeeck L, Schmidt K, Stuyver L, Van Der Wijngaart W (2017) Sampling and detection of airborne influenza virus towards point-of-care applications. PLoS ONE 12:e0174314\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMellon G, Rubenstein E, Antoine M, Ferr\u0026eacute; VM, Gabassi A, Molina JM, Delaugerre C, LeGoff J (2023) Air detection of monkeypox virus in a dedicated outpatient clinic room for monkeypox infection diagnosis. J Infect 86:256\u0026ndash;308\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSousan S, Boatman M, Johansen L, Fan M, Roper RL (2024) Comparing and validating air sampling methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection in HVAC ducts of student dorms. Environ Pollut 343:123164\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeck SH, Castillo A, Kinney KA, Zuniga A, Mohammad Z, Lacey RE, King MD (2019) Monitoring of Pathogenic Bioaerosols in Beef Slaughter Facilities Based on Air Sampling and Airflow Modeling. Appl Eng Agric 35:1015\u0026ndash;1036\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorvan M, Jacomo A, Lo, Souque C, Wade MJ, Hoffmann T, Pouwels K, Lilley C, Singer AC, Porter J, Evens NP et al (2022) An analysis of 45 large-scale wastewater sites in England to estimate SARS-CoV-2 community prevalence. Nat Commun 2022 13:1:13, 1\u0026ndash;9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWolfe MK, Duong D, Bakker KM, Ammerman M, Mortenson L, Hughes B, Arts P, Lauring AS, Fitzsimmons WJ, Bendall E et al (2022) Wastewater-Based Detection of Two Influenza Outbreaks. Environ Sci Technol Lett 9:687\u0026ndash;692\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKo KKK, Chng KR, Nagarajan N (2022) Metagenomics-enabled microbial surveillance. Nat Microbiol 2022 7:4:7, 486\u0026ndash;496\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Rijn AL, Van Boheemen S, Sidorov I, Carbo EC, Pappas N, Mei H, Feltkamp M, Aanerud M, Bakke P, Claas ECJ et al (2019) The respiratory virome and exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PLoS ONE, 14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoddapaneni H, Cregeen SJ, Sucgang R, Meng Q, Qin X, Avadhanula V, Chao H, Menon V, Nicholson E, Henke D et al (2021) Oligonucleotide capture sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and subgenomic fragments from COVID-19 individuals. PLoS ONE, 16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYamaguchi J, Olivo A, Laeyendecker O, Forberg K, Ndembi N, Mbanya D, Kaptue L, Quinn TC, Cloherty GA, Rodgers MA et al (2018) Universal Target Capture of HIV Sequences From NGS Libraries. Front Microbiol, 9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBriese T, Kapoor A, Mishra N, Jain K, Kumar A, Jabado OJ, Lipkina I (2015) W. Virome Capture Sequencing Enables Sensitive Viral Diagnosis and Comprehensive Virome Analysis. \u003cem\u003emBio\u003c/em\u003e, 6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWylie TN, Wylie KM, Herter BN, Storch GA (2015) Enhanced virome sequencing using targeted sequence capture. Genome Res 25:1910\u0026ndash;1920\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKalantar KL, Carvalho T, De Bourcy CFA, Dimitrov B, Dingle G, Egger R, Han J, Holmes OB, Juan YF, King R et al (2020) IDseq\u0026mdash;An open source cloud-based pipeline and analysis service for metagenomic pathogen detection and monitoring. Gigascience 9:1\u0026ndash;14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen W, Le S, Li Y, Hu F (2016) SeqKit: A Cross-Platform and Ultrafast Toolkit for FASTA/Q File Manipulation. PLoS ONE 11:e0163962\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMd V, Misra S, Li H, Aluru S (2019) Efficient architecture-aware acceleration of BWA-MEM for multicore systems. \u003cem\u003eProceedings \u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;2019 IEEE 33rd International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, IPDPS 2019\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1109/IPDPS.2019.00041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/IPDPS.2019.00041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDanecek P, Bonfield JK, Liddle J, Marshall J, Ohan V, Pollard MO, Whitwham A, Keane T, McCarthy SA, Davies RM (2021) Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. Gigascience 10:1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRStudio Team (2020) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDixon P (2003) VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J Veg Sci 14:927\u0026ndash;930\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDray S, Dufour AB (2007) The ade4 Package: Implementing the Duality Diagram for Ecologists. J Stat Softw 22:1\u0026ndash;20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ecorr.test: Find the correlations, sample sizes, and probability values\u0026hellip; in psych:Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnights D, Kuczynski J, Charlson ES, Zaneveld J, Mozer MC, Collman RG, Bushman FD, Knight R, Kelley ST (2011) Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking. Nat Methods 2011 8:9:8, 761\u0026ndash;763\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVillanueva RAM, Chen ZJ (2019) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Meas (Mahwah N J) 17:160\u0026ndash;1672nd edn.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGu Z, Eils R, Schlesner M (2016) Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data. Bioinformatics 32:2847\u0026ndash;2849\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGu Z, Gu L, Eils R, Schlesner M, Brors B (2014) circlize Implements and enhances circular visualization in R. Bioinformatics 30:2811\u0026ndash;2812\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403\u0026ndash;410\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArendsee ZW, Baker ALV, Anderson TK (2022) smot: a python package and CLI tool for contextual phylogenetic subsampling. J Open Source Softw 7:4193\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSievers F, Higgins DG (2018) Clustal Omega for making accurate alignments of many protein sequences. Protein Sci 27:135\u0026ndash;145\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCapella-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez S, Silla-Mart\u0026iacute;nez JM, Gabald\u0026oacute;n T (2009) trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25:1972\u0026ndash;1973\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, Von Haeseler A, Lanfear R, Teeling E (2020) IQ-TREE 2: New Models and Efficient Methods for Phylogenetic Inference in the Genomic Era. Mol Biol Evol 37:1530\u0026ndash;1534\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu G, Smith DK, Zhu H, Guan Y, Lam TTY (2017) ggtree: an r package for visualization and annotation of phylogenetic trees with their covariates and other associated data. Methods Ecol Evol 8:28\u0026ndash;36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuttie A, Tok S, Yann S, Keo P, Horm SV, Roe M, Kaye M, Sorn S, Holl D, Tum S et al (2019) The evolution and genetic diversity of avian influenza A(H9N2) viruses in Cambodia, 2015\u0026ndash;2016. PLoS ONE 14:e0225428\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRen SY, Wang WB, Hao YG, Zhang HR, Wang ZC, Chen YL, Gao RD (2020) Stability and infectivity of coronaviruses in inanimate environments. World J Clin Cases 8:1391\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePinon A, Vialette M (2019) Survival of Viruses in Water. Intervirology 61:214\u0026ndash;222\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAboubakr HA, Sharafeldin TA, Goyal SM (2021) Stability of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses in the environment and on common touch surfaces and the influence of climatic conditions: A review. Transbound Emerg Dis 68:296\u0026ndash;312\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLauterbach SE, Wright CM, Zentkovich MM, Nelson SW, Lorbach JN, Bliss NT, Nolting JM, Pierson RM, King MD, Bowman AS (2018) Detection of influenza A virus from agricultural fair environment: Air and surfaces. Prev Vet Med 153:24\u0026ndash;29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNikitin N, Petrova E, Trifonova E, Karpova O (2014) Influenza Virus Aerosols in the Air and Their Infectiousness. \u003cem\u003eAdv Virol\u003c/em\u003e, 2014, 859090\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNardell EA, Nathavitharana RR (2020) Airborne Spread of SARS-CoV-2 and a Potential Role for Air Disinfection. JAMA 324:141\u0026ndash;142\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChamseddine A, Soudani N, Kanafani Z, Alameddine I, Dbaibo G, Zaraket H, El-Fadel M (2021) Detection of influenza virus in air samples of patient rooms. J Hosp Infect 108:33\u0026ndash;42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorges JT, Nakada LYK, Maniero MG, Guimar\u0026atilde;es JR (2021) SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review of indoor air sampling for virus detection. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:40460\u0026ndash;40473\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKratzel A, Steiner S, Todt D, V\u0026rsquo;kovski P, Brueggemann Y, Steinmann J, Steinmann E, Thiel V, Pfaender S (2020) Temperature-dependent surface stability of SARS-CoV-2. J Infect 81:452\u0026ndash;482\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSakaguchi H, Wada K, Kajioka J, Watanabe M, Nakano R, Hirose T, Ohta H, Aizawa Y (2010) Maintenance of influenza virus infectivity on the surfaces of personal protective equipment and clothing used in healthcare settings. Environ Health Prev Med 15:344\u0026ndash;349\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOtter JA, Donskey C, Yezli S, Douthwaite S, Goldenberg SD, Weber DJ (2016) Transmission of SARS and MERS coronaviruses and influenza virus in healthcare settings: the possible role of dry surface contamination. J Hosp Infect 92:235\u0026ndash;250\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMercier E, D\u0026rsquo;Aoust PM, Thakali O, Hegazy N, Jia JJ, Zhang Z, Eid W, Plaza-Diaz J, Kabir MP, Fang W et al (2022) Municipal and neighbourhood level wastewater surveillance and subtyping of an influenza virus outbreak. Sci Rep 2022 12:1:12, 1\u0026ndash;11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWolfe MK, Duong D, Bakker KM, Ammerman M, Mortenson L, Hughes B, Arts P, Lauring AS, Fitzsimmons WJ, Bendall E et al (2022) Wastewater-Based Detection of Two Influenza Outbreaks. Environ Sci Technol Lett 9:687\u0026ndash;692\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLowry SA, Wolfe MK, Boehm AB (2023) Respiratory virus concentrations in human excretions that contribute to wastewater: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Water Health 21:831\u0026ndash;848\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones DL, Baluja MQ, Graham DW, Corbishley A, McDonald JE, Malham SK, Hillary LS, Connor TR, Gaze WH, Moura IB et al (2020) Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine and its potential role in person-to-person transmission and the environment-based spread of COVID-19. Sci Total Environ 749:141364\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartin G, Becker DJ, Plowright RK (2018) Environmental persistence of influenza H5N1 is driven by temperature and salinity: Insights from a Bayesian meta-analysis. Front Ecol Evol 6:322449\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpackman E (2023) A Review of the Stability of Avian Influenza Virus in Materials from Poultry Farms. Avian Dis 67:229\u0026ndash;236\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMourik K, Sidorov I, Carbo EC, van der Meer D, Boot A, Kroes ACM, Claas ECJ, Boers SA, de Vries JJC (2024) Comparison of the performance of two targeted metagenomic virus capture probe-based methods using reference control materials and clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol, 62\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuddle S, Forrest L, Akinsuyi N, Bernal M, Brooks LM, Venturini T, Miller C, Brown C, Storey JR, Atkinson N et al (2024) L.,. Evaluating metagenomics and targeted approaches for diagnosis and surveillance of viruses. \u003cem\u003eGenome Medicine 2024 16:1\u003c/em\u003e, 16, 1\u0026ndash;20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhieu Borin PSOT (2009) Assessment of poultry markets and sellers in 25. Provinces and Cities of Cambodia\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarranza-Flores JM, Padilla-Noriega L, Loza-Rubio E, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Espinosa G (2013) Prolonged excretion of a low-pathogenicity H5N2 avian influenza virus strain in the Pekin duck. J Vet Sci 14:487\u0026ndash;490\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGermeraad EA, Sanders P, Hagenaars TJ, De Jong MCM, Beerens N, Gonzales JL (2019) Virus Shedding of Avian Influenza in Poultry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Viruses 2019 11:812\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCosta TP, Brown JD, Howerth EW, Stallknecht DE (2011) Variation in viral shedding patterns between different wild bird species infected experimentally with low-pathogenicity avian influenza viruses that originated from wild birds. Avian Pathol 40:119\u0026ndash;124\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Sample sizes for domestic poultry and environmental sample types\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"523\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 523px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSamples collected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 317px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoultry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThroat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCloacal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChicken\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDuck\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHolding area\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSlaughter area\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutide\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAir\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWash water\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 199px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDrinking water\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 134px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature-portfolio","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Nature Portfolio","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5682962/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5682962/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental surveillance has emerged as a pivotal strategy for early detection of pathogens that pose threats to humans (1) but has not been utilized for zoonotic agents. In Asia, live-bird markets (LBMs) are key human-animal interfaces for zoonotic virus transmission (2). Traditional sampling strategies are time-consuming, expensive, threaten animal welfare and have significant occupational biosafety risks. In this study, we assessed the performance of metagenomics on environmental samples (ES) compared to traditional poultry swabs for detecting avian viral pathogens in LBMs in Cambodia. ES, including air, cage swabs, and carcass wash water, were collected alongside throat and cloacal swabs from domestic chickens and ducks across twelve sampling visits in two LBMs over a 15-month period. Viral nucleic acids were extracted and sequenced using a capture probe-based metagenomics approach. Our results show that metagenomics on ES outperformed traditional poultry samples in detecting the highly pathogenic Influenza A/H5N1, including circulating clades 2.3.4.4b and 2.3.2.1c, which were found in the environment but missed by poultry swabs on multiple occasions. Environmental metagenomics was also highly sensitive in the detection of over 40 other viruses from key pathogen families such as \u003cem\u003eAstroviridae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCoronaviridae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePicornaviridae\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eRetroviridae\u003c/em\u003e. Viral contigs from ES showed high similarity to those from poultry swabs further highlighting the accuracy of this approach. Our findings highlight metagenomics on ES can precisely and effectively replicate metagenomic results from traditional surveillance samples, offering broader coverage and enhanced detection of avian pathogens. This robust approach could be pivotal for mitigating zoonotic spillover, controlling pathogen transmission at LBMs, and enhancing pandemic preparedness strategies.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Air sampling accurately captures circulating zoonotic viral diversity emerging from poultry live-animal markets","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-02-13 05:30:04","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5682962/v1","editorialEvents":[],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature-communications","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"NCOMMS","sideBox":"Learn more about [Nature Communications](http://www.nature.com/ncomms/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://mts-ncomms.nature.com/","title":"Nature Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature Communications","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9c963fd9-b2f8-481a-9356-f2bdbcc84fbf","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 13th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":42348697,"name":"Biological sciences/Microbiology/Virology/Influenza virus"},{"id":42348698,"name":"Biological sciences/Genetics/Sequencing/Next-generation sequencing"},{"id":42348699,"name":"Health sciences/Risk factors"},{"id":42348700,"name":"Health sciences/Diseases/Respiratory tract diseases"},{"id":42348701,"name":"Biological sciences/Ecology/Microbial ecology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-11T08:11:03+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5682962","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68245-8","journal":{"identity":"nature-communications","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Nature Communications"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-12 05:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 12th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-02-13 05:30:04","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41467-025-68245-8","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68245-8","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5682962","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5682962","identity":"rs-5682962","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}