Fowl Cholera: Etiology, Clinical Manifestations, and Control in Poultry
Introduction
Fowl cholera, also termed avian pasteurellosis or avian cholera, is a highly contagious septicemic bacterial disease of domestic and wild birds that causes significant economic losses to the global poultry industry [1, 2, 28]. The disease is characterized by peracute, acute, or chronic clinical courses, with mortality rates that can approach 100% in susceptible naive flocks under certain management conditions [3, 28]. Understanding the precise bacterial agent responsible for fowl cholera is fundamental to diagnosis and control; the question commonly framed as "fowl cholera is caused by which bacteria" is answered definitively by the Gram-negative coccobacillus Pasteurella multocida [1, 2]. This review provides an exhaustive examination of the etiological agent, clinical spectrum, pathological underpinnings, diagnostic approaches, therapeutic interventions, and comprehensive control strategies for fowl cholera in poultry.
Etiology
Taxonomic Position and Subspeciation
Pasteurella multocida is a member of the family Pasteurellaceae [1, 2]. The species is divided into three subspecies that are relevant to avian disease: P. multocida subsp. multocida (the most common cause of fowl cholera), P. multocida subsp. septica, and P. multocida subsp. gallicida [1, 2]. The latter two subspecies may cause fowl cholera-like disease, but their virulence profiles across different avian hosts remain incompletely characterized [1, 2].
Serological Classification
Strains of P. multocida are classified by capsular serogroups (A, B, D, E, F) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) serovars (Heddleston typing 1 through 16) [1, 2]. In poultry, capsular type A strains are most prevalent, while types B and D are also identified in some geographic regions [4, 2, 24]. LPS serotyping has historically been used for epidemiological tracing, although molecular genotyping methods have largely supplanted traditional serology for strain discrimination [2, 17, 23, 24].
Virulence Factors
The pathogenicity of P. multocida is multifactorial, and no single virulence determinant accounts for the observed variation in strain virulence [1, 2]. Key virulence-associated factors include the polysaccharide capsule which confers resistance to phagocytosis, endotoxin (LPS) which drives septicemic shock, outer membrane proteins (OMPs) involved in adhesion and iron acquisition, iron-binding systems, sialidases (nanB, nanH), neuraminidase, and antibody-cleaving enzymes [1, 2, 19]. The P. multocida exotoxin (PMT) may contribute to virulence in some avian infections, although its role is less consistent than in porcine atrophic rhinitis [2].
Multiple fimbrial and adhesin genes have been characterized, including ptfA, pfhA, fimA, fim4, tadD, and the filamentous hemagglutinin genes fhaB1 and fhaB2 [4, 5, 19]. While FhaB2 is established as an important virulence factor, FhaB1 has been shown to be nonessential for the development of acute fowl cholera in turkey poults [5]. Biofilm formation is another recognized attribute of P. multocida strains, and the degree of biofilm production may correlate inversely with in vivo pathogenicity, as low-virulence strains have been observed to exhibit higher biofilm formation capacity on polystyrene surfaces [34]. The presence of extensive virulence gene repertoires, including capsule (capA), iron acquisition (exbB, hgbB, fur), outer membrane proteins (oma87, plpB), sialidases (nanB, nanH), and superoxide dismutases (sodA, sodC), underscores the pathogenic potential of this organism [4, 19].
Genomic Diversity and Molecular Typing
Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) have revealed substantial genetic diversity among avian P. multocida isolates [23, 24]. Sequence types (STs) such as ST9, ST20, ST122, ST134, ST366, and ST374 have been reported in outbreaks globally [17, 19, 23, 24]. Isolates from free-range layer farms in Australia have been shown to carry LPS type L3 with specific frameshift mutations in glycosyltransferase genes like gatG and htpE, and evidence of phase variation in LPS outer core biosynthesis loci has been documented, which may influence the efficacy of autogenous killed vaccines [17, 23].
Epidemiology
Fowl cholera is distributed worldwide and affects a broad range of avian species, including chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and wild birds [3, 1, 2, 27]. Turkeys are considered particularly susceptible, and outbreaks in commercial slow-growing broiler flocks have resulted in 100% mortality [3, 27]. The severity and incidence of infection vary considerably depending on host factors (species, age, immune status), environmental conditions (stocking density, ventilation, stress), and bacterial strain characteristics [1, 2].
Transmission and Carrier State
Transmission occurs primarily via the respiratory route through direct contact with infected birds or contaminated fomites [1, 2]. Carrier birds are the major reservoir of infection; surviving birds from diseased flocks and asymptomatically colonized individuals within naive flocks can harbor P. multocida in the respiratory tract and intermittently shed the organism [2]. Wild birds may serve as a source of infection for commercial poultry operations, while the role of mammals as vectors is less comprehensively documented but cannot be excluded [2]. The translocation of carrier birds and contaminated equipment between farms is a critical risk factor for disease spread [1].
Zoonotic Considerations
The question of avian cholera transmission to humans arises frequently in veterinary and public health contexts. The available evidence indicates that P. multocida can cause opportunistic infections in humans, typically following animal bites, scratches, or close contact with contaminated secretions, but documented cases directly attributable to fowl cholera outbreaks in poultry are extremely rare. The species is not considered a primary human pathogen, and no significant public health threat is posed by the consumption of poultry products derived from infected flocks, provided standard hygienic processing protocols are followed. (Note: The search term "avian cholera transmission to humans" reflects a common query; the provided literature context does not include peer-reviewed papers directly addressing human clinical cases of fowl cholera origin.)
Fowl Cholera Meaning in Bengali
For regional veterinary communication, the disease "fowl cholera" is often translated in Bengali as "পোলট্রি কলেরা" (Poultry Kolera) or "পাখির কলেরা" (Pakhi Kolera), referring to the bacterial septicemic condition in domestic birds distinct from true enteric cholera caused by Vibrio cholerae.
Clinical Manifestations
Fowl cholera presents in three main clinical forms: peracute, acute, and chronic [1, 2, 28].
Peracute Form
The peracute form is characterized by sudden death with few or no premonitory clinical signs [3, 1]. Mortality may spike rapidly in a flock, with affected birds found dead in good body condition. This form is common in highly susceptible populations, such as turkeys and naive layer flocks, and can lead to 100% mortality if not identified and contained [3, 28].
Acute Form
The acute form is the most frequently observed presentation in commercial poultry [1, 2]. Clinical signs include fever, depression, anorexia, ruffled feathers, mucoid or frothy discharge from the mouth and nares, dyspnea, diarrhea (often greenish or yellowish), and cyanosis of the comb and wattles [1, 28]. Mortality rises over several days, with morbidity and mortality rates varying from 10% to 80% depending on host and strain factors [1, 2]. In slow-growing broilers, acute outbreaks have been documented at 5, 11, and 14 weeks of age, with lesions dominated by septicemia [3].
Chronic Form
The chronic form may follow an acute episode or develop as a low-grade infection in partially immune birds [1, 2, 28]. Clinical signs are localized and include swollen wattles (wattle edema), conjunctivitis, sinusitis, torticollis (twisted neck) from otitis media interna, dyspnea due to airsacculitis, and lameness from purulent arthritis or synovitis [1, 2, 28]. In backyard turkeys, atypical presentations such as vegetative valvular endocarditis leading to acute heart rupture have been reported [27].
Pathology and Pathogenesis
Gross Lesions
Peracute and acute cases exhibit generalized septicemic lesions: multifocal petechial hemorrhages on serosal surfaces, epicardium, and visceral fat; congested and edematous lungs; mottled, swollen livers and spleens with necrotic foci; and diffuse hyperemia of the intestinal tract [3, 1, 28]. The liver classically displays pinpoint white necrotic foci (pinhead necrotic foci), a hallmark lesion of acute fowl cholera [28]. In chronic cases, caseous or purulent exudate is found in the wattles, sinuses, joints, tendon sheaths, and air sacs [1, 2, 27].
Histopathology
Microscopic examination reveals hepatic and splenic necrosis, pulmonary edema, and extensive bacterial colonization in multiple organs [3, 33]. In a chicken model of acute fowl cholera, necroptosis, apoptosis, and inflammation have been identified as key pathways contributing to liver injury [33]. Septic embolization, particularly in endocarditis cases, can lead to infarcts in the kidney, liver, heart, spleen, and pancreas [27].
Pathogenesis
Infection typically begins with inhalation of P. multocida into the respiratory tract [1, 2]. The bacteria adhere to mucosal epithelium using fimbriae and OMPs, evade host phagocytosis via the capsule, and rapidly proliferate in the bloodstream, causing septicemia [1, 2, 19]. LPS triggers a potent inflammatory cascade leading to vascular leakage, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and multiorgan failure [33].
Diagnostics
Accurate diagnosis relies on bacterial isolation, molecular detection, and serological methods.
Bacteriological Isolation
Samples from liver, spleen, heart blood, lung, bone marrow, or exudative lesions are inoculated onto blood agar or MacConkey agar [1, 6, 7]. P. multocida grows as small, gray, mucoid colonies on blood agar and does not grow on MacConkey agar [1, 7]. Phenotypic identification is confirmed by Gram stain (Gram-negative coccobacillus), positive oxidase and catalase reactions, and biochemical profiles using automated systems such as Vitek 2 Compact [8, 6, 19].
Molecular Detection
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays targeting capsular serogroup-specific genes (e.g., hyaD/hyaC for capsular type A) and virulence genes (omp87, ptfA, pfhA, exbB, nanB, sodC) provide definitive identification and characterization [8, 4, 6, 19]. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is used for direct detection from clinical samples [3, 7]. LPS genotyping by multiplex PCR differentiates L1 to L8 types [17, 23, 24].
Serological Assays
Indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (iELISAs) using whole-cell antigens or recombinant OMPs (e.g., OmpH) are employed to monitor antibody responses post-vaccination or during outbreak investigations [9, 15, 21, 22, 29, 35]. Commercial ELISA kits are available, but in-house assays have been standardized for detection of duck antibodies [35].
Advanced Molecular and Computational Approaches
Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and phylogenomic analysis provide high-resolution insights into outbreak dynamics, strain relatedness, LPS structure, antimicrobial resistance genes, and virulence gene content [17, 19, 23]. Random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPD) PCR and repetitive extragenic palindromic PCR (rep-PCR) are used for rapid genotyping [17, 19]. Data mining and machine learning models, including logistic regression, random forest, and gradient boosting, have been developed to predict fowl cholera infection status based on clinical, environmental, and management variables, achieving predictive accuracies of up to 94.6% with random forest algorithms [18].
flowchart TD
A["Suspected Fowl Cholera (e.g., sudden death, septicemia)"], > B["Necropsy & Gross Lesions\n(Petechiae, liver necrosis)"]
B, > C{"Sample Collection\n(Liver, spleen, heart blood, lung)"}
C, > D["Bacteriological Culture\n(Blood agar, 37°C, 24-48h)"]
D, > E{"Gram Stain & Biochemical Tests\n(Gram-negative coccobacillus, oxidase+)?"}
E, Yes, > F["Molecular Confirmation\n(PCR: capsular type, virulence genes)"]
E, No, > G["Consider Other Pathogens\n(e.g., E. coli, Salmonella)"]
F, > H{"Further Characterization"}
H, > I["Serotyping (Heddleston)\n& LPS Genotyping"]
H, > J["MLST / WGS\n(Epidemiological typing)"]
H, > K["Antimicrobial\nSusceptibility Testing"]
I, > L["Definitive Diagnosis:\nFowl Cholera"]
J, > L
K, > L
L, > M["Implement Control Measures\n(Treatment, Vaccination, Biosecurity)"]
Treatment and Antimicrobial Resistance
Antibiotic Therapy
Treatment of acute fowl cholera relies on prompt administration of antimicrobials effective against P. multocida [7]. Commonly used classes include penicillins, tetracyclines, sulfonamides, fluoroquinolones, florfenicol, and macrolides [4, 6, 7, 19]. Treatment is best administered through water or feed for flock-wide coverage, and supportive care including improved ventilation and reduced stress is recommended [7].
Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns
Multidrug-resistant (MDR) P. multocida strains are increasingly reported worldwide [8, 19]. In Bangladesh, 90.9% of strains isolated from layer hens were MDR, with resistance to at least five antimicrobial classes, while 81.8% were biofilm formers [19]. In Ethiopia, isolates from breeder chickens showed high sensitivity to penicillin, ampicillin, norfloxacin, and florfenicol but intermediate susceptibility to streptomycin, gentamycin, amoxicillin, tetracycline, and sulfonamides [6]. A study in Indonesia reported resistance to levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in a single isolate but general susceptibility in others, highlighting the geographic variability in resistance profiles [4]. The presence of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) confirmed by genomic analysis underscores the need for ongoing surveillance and prudent antimicrobial use [19].
Control and Prevention
Biosecurity
Biosecurity is the cornerstone of fowl cholera prevention [1, 2]. Measures include strict confinement of poultry to prevent contact with wild birds and rodents, all-in/all-out production systems, disinfection of equipment and facilities, quarantine of newly introduced birds, and proper disposal of carcasses [1, 7, 2]. In free-range systems, where contact with wild birds is more difficult to prevent, enhanced biosecurity protocols are essential [3, 17].
Vaccination
Both inactivated (bacterin) and live attenuated vaccines are available for fowl cholera, but each has limitations [1, 2, 25].
Inactivated Vaccines (Bacterins)
Killed whole-cell vaccines adjuvanted with oil emulsion or aluminum hydroxide are widely used [21, 28, 29]. They induce humoral immunity but often require booster doses and provide variable protection, particularly against heterologous serotypes [2, 23, 29]. Single-dose vaccination assays demonstrate lower protection indices (average 43.7%) compared to booster dose assays (average 76.2%), confirming the importance of multiple immunizations [29]. Autogenous (farm-specific) bacterins are used when commercial vaccines fail, but their efficacy can be compromised by phase variation and LPS diversity among outbreak strains [17, 23].
Live Attenuated Vaccines
Live vaccines can induce both humoral and mucosal immunity and are often more effective than bacterins, but safety concerns regarding residual virulence and vaccine-related disease have been documented [2, 25]. Differentiation between vaccine-related fowl cholera and natural outbreaks is challenging because many live vaccine strains share the same Heddleston serotype (3,4) as common outbreak isolates; serotyping alone is insufficient for discrimination, and molecular fingerprinting methods are required [25].
Novel Vaccine Platforms
Significant advances have been made in the development of next-generation vaccines.
Recombinant viral-vector vaccines: A recombinant herpesvirus of turkeys (HVT) expressing P. multocida OmpH (rHVT-OmpH) provided complete protection in ducks against virulent challenge seven days post-vaccination, demonstrating the utility of HVT as a vector for non-chicken hosts [9]. Similarly, recombinant duck enteritis virus (DEV) expressing OmpH induced strong humoral and cellular immunity and conferred combined protection against duck plague and fowl cholera in ducks [15].
Gamma-irradiated mucosal vaccines: Gamma-irradiated P. multocida (1 kGy) formulated with Montanide gel adjuvant and administered intranasally or intraocularly at 0.3 mL achieved 100% protection in chickens, outperforming formalin-inactivated parenteral vaccine (85% protection) [20].
Iron-inactivated vaccines: Iron-inactivated P. multocida A:1 vaccine induced protective antibody titers equivalent to commercial oil emulsion vaccine in backyard chickens [21].
Subunit vaccines: Supernatant proteins from iron-restricted cultures, including aspartate ammonia-lyase (AspA), diacylglycerol kinase (DgK), and 30S ribosomal protein S6 (RpsF), induced 66.7% to 80.0% protection in chickens, indicating their potential as subunit vaccine candidates [26].
Combination vaccines: A combination of live attenuated duck plague vaccine with recombinant OmpH protein conferred effective protection against fowl cholera in ducks without interfering with the antibody response to duck enteritis virus [22]. A combined vaccine against fowl cholera and avian influenza has also been investigated [10].
Alternative Control Strategies
The emergence of MDR P. multocida has driven interest in non-antibiotic interventions.
Probiotics: A multi-strain probiotic containing Lactobacillus plantarum, L. fermentum, Pediococcus acidilactici, Enterococcus faecium, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (at 10^8 CFU/kg feed) significantly reduced intestinal P. multocida load, improved growth performance, upregulated anti-inflammatory genes (HIF1A, TSG-6, PTGER2), and reduced mortality in broilers experimentally challenged with P. multocida [16].
Plant-derived antimicrobials: Ethanolic extract of Wild Egyptian Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L. var. sylvestris) demonstrated significant antibacterial activity against MDR P. multocida, with inhibition zones up to 25 mm, MIC values of 4-16 µg/mL, and up to threefold downregulation of virulence genes omp87, pfhA, and ptfA [8].
Probiotic-phage synergies: While not covered in the provided papers, other novel strategies continue to be explored in the field.
Coinfections and Immunosuppression
Fowl cholera may occur concurrently with other diseases such as lymphoid leukosis, taeniasis, and other immunosuppressive conditions, complicating diagnosis and control [11, 12, 13, 14]. Affected birds often show exacerbated clinical signs and higher mortality, underscoring the need for comprehensive flock health management [11, 12, 13].
Conclusion
Fowl cholera remains a major infectious threat to poultry production systems worldwide, caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida. The disease is characterized by a spectrum of peracute, acute, and chronic presentations driven by a complex interplay of capsular, LPS, and adhesin virulence factors. Diagnostic confirmation depends on culture, molecular typing, and serological assays, with advanced genomic tools providing unprecedented resolution for epidemiological investigations and vaccine strain selection. Control is multifaceted, relying on stringent biosecurity, antimicrobial therapy guided by susceptibility testing, and vaccination programs tailored to local serotypes and production systems. Novel vaccine platforms including recombinant viral vectors, gamma-irradiated mucosal vaccines, and iron-inactivated preparations, along with alternative strategies such as probiotics and plant-derived antimicrobials, offer promising avenues to combat multidrug resistance and improve disease management in poultry flocks.
References
[1] Tsehay MT, Zeru A, Mengist GK. Review on Fowl Cholera. Journal of Life Sciences Research and Reviews. 2025. Source.
[2] Christensen JP, Bojesen AM, Bisgaard M. Fowl cholera. Revue Scientifique et Technique. 2022. Source.
[3] Miller I, Jerry C, Nguyen V, et al. 100% Mortality in Commercial Slow-Growing Broiler Chickens with Acute Fowl Cholera. Avian Diseases. 2025. Source.
[4] Arvia MM, Kurnia R, Nugroho C, et al. Characterization of Pasteurella multocida Isolated from Layer Chickens Infected with Fowl Cholera in Sukabumi, Indonesia: Antibiotic Resistance and Virulence Gene Detection. World's Veterinary Journal. 2025. Source.
[5] Dassanayake R, Briggs RE, Kaplan B, et al. Pasteurella multocida filamentous hemagglutinin B1 (fhaB1) gene is not involved with avian fowl cholera pathogenesis in turkey poults. BMC Veterinary Research. 2025. Source.
[6] Geda AM, Wendimu A, Lulie S, et al. Molecular Detection and Antibiogram Profiling of Pasteurella multocida Isolated From Breeder Chickens Suspected of Fowl Cholera in Gondar City, Ethiopia. International Journal of Microbiology. 2025. Source.
[7] Geda AM. Fowl Cholera in Chickens: Current Trends in Diagnosis and Phenotypic Drug Resistance in Gondar City, Ethiopia. Veterinary Medicine International. 2024. Source.
[8] Wahdan A, Elsebai MF, Elhaig MM, et al. Innovative use of wild Egyptian artichoke extract to control fowl cholera in vitro. Veterinary World. 2025. Source.
[9] Apinda N, Yao Y, Zhang Y, et al. Efficiency of NHEJ-CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-LoxP Engineered Recombinant Turkey Herpesvirus Expressing Pasteurella multocida OmpH Protein for Fowl Cholera Prevention in Ducks. Vaccines. 2023. [Source](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4ee0ff49a6dbd622f9be8197a0dc83f3f9d
[10] Rafique M, Shahzad A, Jahangir G, et al. Immunopotential of the Combine Vaccine against Fowl Cholera and Avian Influenza Virus in Poultry. Molecular Genetics Microbiology and Virology. 2025. Source.
[11] Chaiyaphat SK, Wattanakul PT, Srisombat KP, et al. Immunological interactions in dual infections of fowl cholera and lymphoid leucosis. International Journal of Immunology Research. 2025. Source.
[12] Fashina AO, Okafor CE, Nwachukwu EJ, et al. Epidemiological overview of concurrent fowl cholera and lymphoid leucosis in indigenous chickens. Journal of Advances in Microbiology Research. 2025. Source.
[13] R R, J N, G K, et al. Co-existence of fowl cholera and lymphoid leucosis in Desi chickens. International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry. 2024. Source.
[14] Sushma HR, Pazhanivel N, Jayanthi N, et al. A Report on Fowl Cholera and Taeniasis Infection in a Backyard Flock. Indian Veterinary Journal. 2024. Source.