Meet the 2026 Fleming Prize Prize Winner, Professor Antonia Ho

The Fleming Prize Award recognises outstanding contributions to microbiology and infectious disease research. This year’s recipient, Professor Antonia Ho, is a clinician-scientist whose work spans viral genomics, epidemiology and frontline patient care. From responding to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic to leading investigations into severe hepatitis in children, her career exemplifies translational microbiology in action. 

In this interview with Martina Chukwu, microbiologist and bioinformatician, Professor Ho reflects on the collaborative nature of research, the power of interdisciplinary science and what gives her hope for the future of virology. 

First of all, congratulations on winning this year’s Fleming Prize. How does this recognition reflect on the work you and your team have been doing, particularly in showing the real-world impact of virology research on patient care? 

Thank you. I’m extremely honoured, but research is never done alone. This prize really reflects all the amazing people I’ve had the opportunity to work with and be trained by. My journey began with my Master’s at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, followed by my PhD in Malawi, where I learned enormously from supervisors, fellow students and field teams. Doing research in Malawi taught me not only scientific skills but also how to engage communities, retain participants and conduct research in different environments. 

Now at the MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research (CVR), I work with outstanding scientists across multiple disciplines. A lot of my recent work has focused on pandemic response, which has involved collaborations not only within my institution but across the UK and internationally. The technicians receiving samples, the research nurses recruiting patients, the public health colleagues analysing data, this prize is for them as much as it is for me. It reflects team science and the real-world systems that make impactful research possible. 

You began your career as a clinician and went on to become a leader in viral research. When did you first realise that asking research questions and finding the answers could change the way patients are treated? 

That moment came during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. I was training as an infectious diseases physician in Glasgow and happened to be the doctor on call when the first two cases of pandemic H1N1 in Europe presented to our hospital. It was an entirely new disease, as with COVID-19 many years later, we knew very little about it initially. As a clinician, you focus on the individual patient in front of you. But during that pandemic, I noticed something striking: the pattern of hospital admissions looked very different from a typical influenza season. Instead of mostly elderly individuals or those with underlying conditions, we saw younger adults, pregnant women and individuals with obesity. That was when I realised the power of epidemiology. By systematically collecting data and designing studies with rigour, you can step back and identify patterns of who is at risk, how the disease behaves differently, and this knowledge can inform patient care and public health policy. That experience was pivotal for me and inspired me to pursue epidemiology alongside clinical medicine. 

You are known for combining clinical care with genomics and epidemiology. For those without a science background, can you explain why that combination is so powerful? 

Science is inherently collaborative, and none one can be an expert in everything. Being a clinician helps you identify the questions that truly matter for patients. You start by asking: what will improve patient outcomes? From there, you draw on other scientific disciplines to help answer those questions. At the CVR, I work alongside experts in genomics, bioinformatics, immunology and computational modelling. Each discipline is like a different language. You don’t need to be fluent in all of them, but you need to understand enough to recognise which expertise is needed and when. I often think of my role as being like a translator or conductor, someone who brings different perspectives together. I help integrate genomics data, epidemiological patterns and clinical insight into a coherent response to a research question. That interdisciplinary approach is incredibly powerful, because it allows us to connect viral sequence to meaningful clinical decision-making. 

One of your recent discoveries identified the viral cause of a global outbreak of severe hepatitis in children. Why was this finding so important, and how is it already changing clinical practice? 

The outbreak of severe hepatitis in young children was unusual because we genuinely did not know the cause. It wasn’t clear whether we were dealing with an infectious agent, a toxin or an environmental exposure. Some children became very sick and required liver transplants, so there was an urgent need for answers.  

Fortunately, the collaborative infrastructure built during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed us to respond quickly. We had already established relationships with hospitals, public health agencies, and research teams. Ethics approvals and recruitment pathways were in place. Within two months, we had recruited patients, completed sequencing and performed genomic and bioinformatic analyses. We worked closely with colleagues across the UK and internationally, and independent groups validated our findings. That gave confidence in the results, which directly informed UK Health Security Agency technical reports. It was a strong example of NHS, academia and public health working together. It also demonstrated how collaboration, rather than competition, can accelerate discovery during urgent public health situations. 

Beyond research, you are deeply committed to mentoring the next generation. What have your students and trainees taught you over the years? 

I have learned a great deal from my students. Having led teams in both Malawi and the UK, I have realised that people are motivated differently, and effective leadership requires adaptability. Communication styles that work in one context may not work in another. It’s important to understand what drives each individual, offer one-to-one support, and adjust your management approach accordingly. I also believe in leading by example and being approachable, with a clear vision so everyone understands our shared goals.  

With PhD students, the relationship is very much bidirectional. Having the opportunity to  focus on one research question for several years is a privilege, and students often become the real experts in their field. They bring fresh perspectives and often stronger technical skills, especially in coding and data visualisation, than I do. I learn from them constantly. Interdisciplinary group meetings, where students from different areas criticque and contribute to each other’s work, are particularly valuable. Diverse perspectives strengthen research. 

Looking ahead, what gives you the most hope about the future of virology and infectious disease medicine? 

There is a great deal to be hopeful about. We now have more powerful tools than ever before: high-throughput sequencing that generates vast amounts of viral and bacterial genomic data; artificial intelligence and machine learning that accelerate drug discovery; mRNA vaccine platforms that can be adapted to multiple pathogens; and innovative delivery systems, including mucosal and needle-free vaccines. The speed at which COVID-19 vaccines were developed reflected decades of prior scientific investments, and that technological foundation is now being applied to many other pathogens.  

However, many challenges remain. Pressures on research funding and rising vaccine hesitancy are significant concerns. Even the most effective vaccines can only make an impact if people trust and accept them. The recent measles outbreaks highlight the consequences of declining uptake. As scientists our responsibility extends beyond generating evidence, we must also communicate clearly, engage with the public and maintain trust in science. 

What advice would you give to clinicians who are interested in research but feel intimidated by it? 

Research underpins every clinical guideline we use, yet it is not always embedded in every doctor’s role. My advice is to start small: attend journal clubs, contribute to data collection in ongoing studies, analyse small datasets, complete Good Clinical Practice training, and get involved in clinical trials as a co-investigator. If feasible, consider a Master’s degree, even part-time. There is no need to commit immediately to a PhD. Explore different aspects of research, whether laboratory science, epidemiology, clinical trials, and see what resonates with you. 

For me, it became clear early on that I preferred stepping back to analyse data rather than working at the bench. Identifying your strengths is key. Being a clinician-scientist is challenging but incredibly rewarding. It allows you to integrate patient care with discovery and to contribute the future of medicine in a meaningful way.