Avian Coryza (Infectious Coryza): Veterinary Reference on Etiology, Epidemiology, Clinical Signs, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Control

Introduction

Avian coryza, also referred to as infectious coryza, is an acute upper respiratory tract disease of gallinaceous birds caused by the bacterium Avibacterium paragallinarum [1]. The disease is recognized globally and imposes significant economic losses in poultry production through decreased egg production, increased culling, and mortality in severe cases [1, 2]. Although the condition primarily affects chickens, it has been described in other avian species such as quail and pheasants [1]. The historical term "avian coryn" has been used interchangeably with infectious coryza in some earlier literature, though modern nomenclature standardizes the name as avian coryza [1]. This article provides a comprehensive veterinary reference covering the etiology, epidemiology, clinical signs, pathology, diagnosis, treatment, and control of avian coryza, with dense citations from the peer-reviewed literature.

Etiology

Avibacterium paragallinarum is a Gram-negative, non-motile, pleomorphic coccobacillus belonging to the family Pasteurellaceae [1, 3]. The bacterium requires nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD; V-factor) for growth, a characteristic shared with other avian pasteurellas [1]. The species has been classified into three principal serovars (A, B, and C) based on hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) tests, with further subtypes recognized within each serovar [4, 5]. The HMTp210 gene encodes a major hemagglutinin that determines serovar specificity, and molecular genotyping of this gene has been proposed as a replacement for classical serotyping [5]. Recent work has identified regions of HMTp210 important for hemagglutination activity and serotype determination [4].

Genomic characterization of A. paragallinarum has advanced considerably. Complete and draft genome sequences of nonpathogenic isolates from healthy layer flocks in the USA have been published [6]. Comparative genomics has revealed that pathogenic and nonpathogenic strains differ in the presence of virulence-associated genes, including those involved in lipooligosaccharide (LOS) and capsular polysaccharide (CPS) biosynthesis [3, 7]. A transposon mutagenesis study identified genes essential for biofilm formation, which likely contributes to persistence in the environment and on mucosal surfaces [8]. Natural transformation has been characterized in A. paragallinarum, providing a mechanism for horizontal gene transfer among strains [9]. The species also produces outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) that can mediate horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes [7].

Nonpathogenic A. paragallinarum isolates have been recovered from naive, healthy layer flocks across multiple US states, suggesting a carrier state exists without clinical disease [10, 11]. These nonpathogenic strains may share antigenic properties that could be exploited for vaccine development [11]. A marker-free genetic manipulation system using counterselection has been developed, facilitating functional gene studies in this organism [12]. Molecular serotyping approaches based on the HMTp210 gene have been applied to characterize circulating strains in China, revealing considerable genetic diversity [13, 14]. Similarly, novel genotypes have been identified in Iranian poultry flocks [15].

Epidemiology

Avian coryza occurs worldwide, with varying prevalence depending on geographic region, management practices, and biosecurity levels [1]. A meta-analysis of Chinese poultry populations from 1993 to 2024 estimated a pooled prevalence of approximately 15%, with higher rates in southern provinces and during the cooler months [2]. In the United States, a retrospective analysis of outbreaks in California between 2016 and 2022 identified seasonal patterns and associations with multi-age layer complexes [16]. An outbreak in a table egg layer flock in Alberta, Canada was linked to the introduction of replacement pullets [17]. A case-control survey in Pennsylvania identified farm characteristics such as lack of all-in/all-out management, presence of other respiratory diseases, and poor biosecurity as significant risk factors [18, 19].

Transmission occurs primarily through direct contact, aerosolized droplets, and contamination of water and feed [1]. The bacterium can survive for several days in the environment, particularly in organic material [1]. Chronic carrier birds, including those infected with nonpathogenic strains, may serve as reservoirs [10, 11]. Risk factors for introduction include adding new birds without quarantine, visiting farm personnel, and shared equipment [18]. Coinfection with other respiratory pathogens such as Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale has been documented and can exacerbate disease severity [20]. In small chicken flocks, the consequences of infectious coryza, along with infectious laryngotracheitis and mycoplasmosis, are often severe, with high morbidity and significant mortality [21]. A molecular epidemiological study using a genome-guided multilocus sequence typing (MLST) scheme has enhanced the ability to trace transmission chains and identify outbreak strains [22].

Prevalence studies in Ethiopia (2022–2024) confirmed the circulation of A. paragallinarum in suspected cases, with molecular detection by PCR consistent with isolation [23]. In Guangdong Province, China, genomic-based antimicrobial resistance analysis revealed high rates of resistance to sulfonamides and tetracyclines among field isolates [24]. A survey of farm characteristics in the United States indicated that overcrowding and poor ventilation are important risk factors [18]. The role of contaminated fomites, including egg flats and feed bags, has been emphasized in outbreak investigations [17, 16].

Clinical Signs and Pathology

The incubation period for avian coryza is typically 1–3 days after exposure, followed by an acute onset of clinical signs [1]. The hallmark features include serous to mucoid nasal discharge, facial edema (particularly periorbital and infraorbital sinuses), conjunctivitis, and lacrimation [1]. Infected birds often shake their heads, sneeze, and develop dyspnea [25]. In layers, a marked drop in egg production (10–40%) is observed, along with reduced feed and water intake [17, 26]. Broiler chickens may exhibit decreased weight gain and increased feed conversion ratio [25]. Mortality is generally low but can increase when secondary pathogens are present or when environmental conditions are poor [20].

Pathological findings are largely confined to the upper respiratory tract. Gross lesions include catarrhal to fibrinous inflammation of the nasal passages, sinuses, and conjunctival mucosa [1]. Histologically, there is epithelial hyperplasia, loss of cilia, and infiltration of heterophils and mononuclear cells into the lamina propria [25]. In severe cases, fibrinous exudate may fill the infraorbital sinuses [1]. A highly virulent isolate characterized by Mei et al. induced more severe lesions, including fibrinous pneumonia and airsacculitis [25]. Coinfection with Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale has been associated with more extensive lesions, including necrotic rhinitis and bronchopneumonia [20].

Nonpathogenic isolates do not produce clinical signs even when inoculated into susceptible birds, but they may still colonize the upper respiratory tract and stimulate a serological response [11, 10]. This carrier state complicates disease control because healthy-appearing birds can introduce infection into naive flocks [11, 10]. Experimental studies have demonstrated that probiotics combined with berry phenolic extracts can reduce clinical severity and nasal colonization by A. paragallinarum [27]. Chinese herbal medicine extracts have also shown bacteriostatic activity in vitro [28].

Diagnosis

A definitive diagnosis of avian coryza requires isolation and identification of A. paragallinarum from affected birds. Culture is performed on selective media, such as blood agar or chocolate agar supplemented with NAD (V-factor) and with antibiotics to suppress contaminants [29]. Recently developed selective media formulations improve the isolation rate from field samples, especially from mixed infections [29]. Colonies after 24–48 hours of microaerophilic incubation at 37°C appear as dewdrop-like, greyish colonies [1]. Biochemical identification relies on the characteristic requirement for NAD, catalase positivity, and lack of urease activity [1].

Molecular detection using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has become the standard for rapid and specific diagnosis [30]. A species-specific PCR targeting the HMTp210 gene is widely used [30]. More recent assays can differentiate pathogenic from nonpathogenic isolates by detecting the presence or absence of virulence-associated genes [30]. Diagnostic PCR assays are available that can be performed directly on swab samples, reducing turnaround time compared to culture [23]. For serotyping, HI tests or HMTp210-based genotyping are employed [5, 4]. A standardized MLST scheme provides enhanced resolution for epidemiological studies [22].

Broth microdilution has been recommended as a standardized method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of A. paragallinarum [31]. This method uses defined medium, inoculum, and breakpoints to allow comparison across laboratories and surveillance programs [31]. Genomic approaches, including whole-genome sequencing, can identify resistance determinants and support molecular epidemiology [24, 7].

A diagnostic algorithm integrating clinical signs, culture, and PCR is presented in the Mermaid flowchart below.

flowchart TD
    A[Respiratory signs: nasal discharge, facial edema, conjunctivitis in chickens], > B{Collect samples: nasal swabs, sinus exudate, orchoanal cleft swabs}
    B, > C[Inoculate selective media + NAD at 37°C microaerophilic 24-48h]
    C, > D{Dewdrop-like colonies present?}
    D, >|Yes| E[Biochemical tests: NAD-dependent, catalase+, urease-]
    E, > F[PCR: HMTp210 gene target]
    F, > G{Pathogenic vs. nonpathogenic?}
    G, >|Pathogenic| H[Clinical diagnosis: Infectious Coryza confirmed]
    G, >|Nonpathogenic| I[Carrier state: no disease, but potential source]
    D, >|No| J[Consider other differentials: Mycoplasma gallisepticum, Avian Influenza, Fowl Cholera, Bordetella avium]
    H, > K[Serotyping: HI test or HMTp210 genotyping]
    K, > L[Epidemiological typing: MLST, WGS]
    I, > L

Treatment

Antimicrobial therapy is the primary approach to reduce clinical signs and economic losses in an outbreak. Drugs that have been used with variable success include tetracyclines, sulfonamides, tylosin, and fluoroquinolones [1, 31]. Selection should be guided by broth microdilution susceptibility testing because resistance profiles vary geographically and over time [31]. In Guangdong Province, China, high prevalence of resistance to sulfamethoxazole and doxycycline was observed [24]. The administration of water-soluble antibiotics (e.g., oxytetracycline, sulfadimethoxine) for 5–7 days is typical, but treatment does not eliminate the carrier state [1].

Alternative strategies have been explored to reduce antimicrobial use. Probiotics containing Enterococcus faecium combined with berry phenolic extracts limited nasal colonization and decreased clinical scores in experimental infections [27]. Chinese herbal medicine extracts (e.g., Scutellaria baicalensis, Coptis chinensis) demonstrated in vitro bacteriostatic activity against A. paragallinarum [28]. These non-antibiotic approaches may serve as adjuncts or replacements in integrated control programs.

Control and Vaccination

Control of avian coryza relies on biosecurity, management, and vaccination. All-in/all-out production, downtime between flocks, and quarantine of incoming birds are critical [18, 1]. Cleaning and disinfection of housing and equipment, with attention to organic material removal, reduces environmental load [1]. Vaccination is widely practiced in endemic areas, especially in layer flocks. Both inactivated (bacterin) and live attenuated vaccines are available [1].

Inactivated vaccines containing serovars A, B, and C have been used for decades, but their efficacy can be compromised by antigenic variation among field strains [26]. For example, a serovar B variant from Argentina required a specific autogenous vaccine to achieve protection [26]. Live attenuated vaccines, developed by serial passage or genetic modification, offer the advantage of mucosal immunity and ease of administration via drinking water [32]. An attenuated strain developed by Guo et al. provided protection against challenge and was safe in vaccinated birds [32]. Adjuvants such as polymeric nanocarriers can enhance the mucosal immune response to inactivated vaccines [33]. Furthermore, supplementation with Enterococcus faecium probiotics improved vaccine-induced immunity in central China [34].

Surveillance and monitoring using molecular methods help identify circulating serovars and adjust vaccine composition. MLST and whole-genome sequencing provide data for epidemiological tracking [22, 15]. Differential diagnostic exclusion of other respiratory diseases (see cross-linked articles) is essential before implementing control measures. Related articles on this portal include: Avian Coryza (Infectious Coryza): Etiology, Clinical Signs, Diagnosis, and Control in Poultry, Fowl Cholera in Poultry, Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection, and Avian Influenza A Virus.

Future Perspectives

Decades of research have elucidated the basic biology of A. paragallinarum, but gaps remain. The role of nonpathogenic carrier strains in the epidemiology of infectious coryza is not fully understood [11, 10]. Continued genomic surveillance will clarify the evolution of virulence and antimicrobial resistance [24, 7]. Novel diagnostic tools that differentiate between carriage and active infection, such as the PCR assays developed by Shelkamy et al., will be valuable for control programs [30]. Advances in genetic manipulation offer the means to create defined live attenuated vaccines and to study pathogenesis [12, 9].

Integration of control strategies that combine vaccines, probiotics, and herbal extracts may reduce reliance on antibiotics [27, 28]. The development of standardized susceptibility testing methods should be adopted globally to monitor resistance trends [31]. Finally, understanding the natural transformation and OMV-mediated gene transfer in A. paragallinarum will inform risk assessment for emergence of new variants [9, 7].

References

[1] El-Gazzar M, Gallardo R, Bragg R, et al. Avibacterium paragallinarum, the Causative Agent of Infectious Coryza: A Comprehensive Review. Avian Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40249575/

[2] Wang Y, Si M, Qiu J, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and regional insights of infectious coryza among poultry populations in China during 1993-2024: a meta-analysis. J Vet Med Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41320253/

[3] Chen L, Sun J, Hu J, et al. Identification and characterization of biosynthetic loci of lipooligosaccharide and capsular polysaccharide in Avibacterium paragallinarum. Vet Microbiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39612782/

[4] Li KP, Tan DH, Ou SJ, et al. Regions Important for Hemagglutination Activity and Serotypes of Avibacterium paragallinarum HMTp210 Protein. Avian Dis. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37556294/

[5] Buter R, Feberwee A, de Wit S, et al. Molecular characterization of the HMTp210 gene of Avibacterium paragallinarum and the proposition of a new genotyping method as alternative for classical serotyping. Avian Pathol. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37470411/

[6] Shelkamy MMS, Hashish A, Srednik ME, et al. Eight complete and four draft genome sequences of nonpathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum isolates from naive, healthy layer chickens in the USA. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40815000/

[7] Xu J, Mei C, Zhi Y, et al. Comparative Genomics Analysis and Outer Membrane Vesicle-Mediated Horizontal Antibiotic-Resistance Gene Transfer in Avibacterium paragallinarum. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36000914/ *** Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.

[8] Guo M, Wang H, Zhang H, et al. Identification of the genes involved in biofilm formation of Avibacterium paragallinarum using random transposon mutagenesis. Vet Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39892023/

[9] Liu D, Zhang H, Tan H, et al. Basic Characterization of Natural Transformation in Avibacterium paragallinarum. Microbiol Spectr. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37212663/

[10] Shelkamy MMS, Hashish A, Srednik ME, et al. Prevalence of Nonpathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum in Naïve-Healthy Layer Flocks Across Multiple States in the United States. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40420864/

[11] Shelkamy MMS, Fay C, Hashish A, et al. Investigating the pathogenicity of novel non-pathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum isolates and their protective potential against infectious coryza. Avian Pathol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42210853/

[12] Sun J, Chen L, He G, et al. Development of a counterselection system for efficient marker-free genetic manipulation in Avibacterium paragallinarum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41910236/

[13] Wen J, Liao Z, Yin L, et al. Molecular serotyping and virulence assessment of Avibacterium paragallinarum strains circulating in Chinese poultry flocks. Front Vet Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41815498/

[14] Chen L, Hu J, Dai N, et al. Genotypic and Biochemical Divergence of Avibacterium paragallinarum Isolates in China. Avian Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40643936/

[15] Bashashati M, Moradi Haghgou L, Nouri A, et al. Genetic diversity of Avibacterium paragallinarum: uncovering novel genotypes in Iranian poultry farms. Avian Pathol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41178666/

[16] Nguyen V, Stoute S, Ramsubeik S, et al. A Retrospective Analysis to Identify Epidemiologic Patterns of the Infectious Coryza Outbreak in California 2016-22. Avian Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40249577/

[17] Gupta A, Girard T, Bowling H, et al. Infectious coryza outbreak in a table egg layer flock in Alberta. Can Vet J. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41716501/

[18] Pierdon M, Prown R, Davison S, et al. A Case Control Survey of Farm Characteristics, Biosecurity Measures, and Risk Events in Flocks With and Without Infectious Coryza. Avian Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40249578/

[19] Davison S, Tracy L, Kelly DJ, et al. Infectious Coryza in Pennsylvania. Avian Dis. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39400211/

[20] Stępień-Pyśniak D, Dec M, Hauschild T, et al. Case reports involving coinfection with Avibacterium paragallinarum and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale in broiler chickens and Avibacterium endocarditis in broiler breeding hens in Poland. Avian Pathol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38385975/

[21] Etterlin PE, Comin A, Eriksson H, et al. Questionnaire study suggests grave consequences of infectious laryngotracheitis, infectious coryza and mycoplasmosis in small chicken flocks. Acta Vet Scand. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37710285/

[22] Ghanem M, Harris A, Timilsina M, et al. A standardized, genome-guided MLST scheme for Avibacterium paragallinarum: enhanced epidemiological typing and validation against existing methods. J Clin Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41665375/

[23] Deresse G, Assefa E, Tesfaw L, et al. Isolation, molecular detection, and sequence analysis of Avibacterium paragallinarum from suspected cases of infectious coryza infected chickens from different areas of Ethiopia, 2022-2024. BMC Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40087555/

[24] Cao X, Huang X, Lin Y, et al. Prevalence and genomic-based antimicrobial resistance analysis of Avibacterium paragallinarum isolates in Guangdong Province, China. Poult Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38652951/

[25] Mei C, Zhi Y, Xu J, et al. Characterization of a highly virulent Avibacterium paragallinarum isolate. J Anim Sci. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37882211/

[26] Huberman YD, Méndez LL, Méndez AM, et al. Efficacy of Different Vaccination Plans Against Experimental Infection with a Serovar B Variant of Avibacterium paragallinarum from Argentina in Laying Hens. Avian Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41003436/

[27] Thapa K, Phan A, Lin S, et al. Implication of probiotics with berry phenolic extracts against Avibacterium paragallinarum. Microb Pathog. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42097187/

[28] Yue Z, Li Y, Chen L, et al. Study on bacteriostasis of Chinese herbal medicine extracts to avibacterium paragallinarum. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41579597/

[29] Srednik ME, Shelkamy MMS, Hashish A, et al. Development of selective culture media for efficient isolation of Avibacterium paragallinarum from chickens. J Clin Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40679850/

[30] Shelkamy MMS, Hashish A, Chaves M, et al. Development and Validation of PCR Assays for Improved Diagnosis of Infectious Coryza by Differentiating Pathogenic and Nonpathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum. Avian Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40249576/

[31] Gütgemann F, Heuvelink A, Müller A, et al. Recommendation of a standardized broth microdilution method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Avibacterium paragallinarum and resistance monitoring. J Clin Microbiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38363142/

[32] Guo M, Wang H, Liu D, et al. Development and evaluation of an attenuated Avibacterium paragallinarum strain as a live vaccine candidate for infectious coryza. Vet Res. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40490807/

[33] Ibrahim HM, Mohammed GM, Sayed RH, et al. Polymeric nanocarrier-based adjuvants to enhance a locally produced mucosal coryza vaccine in chicken. Sci Rep. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38961116/

[34] Cui W, Wang C, Wu Y, et al. Epidemiological Investigation of Infectious Coryza in Central China and the Effect of Enterococcus faecium on Improving Vaccine Immunity. Poult Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40769017/

[35] Guo Y, Yin M, Zhang T, et al. Research Note: Isolation and genomic characterization of Avibacterium paragallinarum from the Hubei Province, China. Poult Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40644909/