Infectious Coryza in Poultry: Diagnosis, Symptoms, and Causal Pathogen

Introduction

Infectious coryza (IC) is an acute respiratory disease of chickens and other avian species caused by the bacterium Avibacterium paragallinarum (formerly Haemophilus paragallinarum) [1, 59]. The disease is characterized by serous to mucopurulent nasal discharge, facial edema, conjunctivitis, and decreased egg production in laying flocks [1, 59]. First described in the early 20th century, IC remains a significant economic concern for commercial poultry operations worldwide due to its high morbidity, reduced feed conversion efficiency, and increased culling rates [1, 73]. The causal pathogen is a Gram-negative, non-motile, pleomorphic coccobacillus that requires nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD, V-factor) for growth, although NAD-independent variants have been documented [2, 27, 52, 65]. This article provides an exhaustive review of the causal pathogen, clinical symptomatology, and diagnostic approaches for infectious coryza, with emphasis on molecular and serological methods.

Causal Pathogen: Avibacterium paragallinarum

Taxonomy and Nomenclature

The bacterium was originally classified as Haemophilus gallinarum and later as Haemophilus paragallinarum [78, 79]. Based on phylogenetic analyses of 16S rRNA gene sequences and DNA-DNA hybridization studies, the organism was reclassified into the genus Avibacterium within the family Pasteurellaceae [1, 59]. The genus Avibacterium also includes other avian pathogens such as Avibacterium avium and Avibacterium volantium, but A. paragallinarum is the sole etiological agent of infectious coryza [1].

Morphology and Growth Characteristics

A. paragallinarum is a Gram-negative, non-spore-forming, pleomorphic coccobacillus that measures 0.3 to 0.5 micrometers in diameter and 1.0 to 3.0 micrometers in length [1, 59]. The organism is non-motile and exhibits a characteristic bipolar staining pattern with Giemsa or Gram stain [1]. Growth is fastidious and requires enriched media supplemented with NAD (V-factor) and hemin (X-factor) is not required [1, 59]. On chocolate agar or blood agar with a nurse colony (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus), colonies appear as small, dewdrop-like, translucent colonies after 24 to 48 hours of incubation at 37 degrees Celsius in a 5 to 10 percent carbon dioxide atmosphere [1, 59]. The development of selective culture media has improved isolation efficiency from clinical samples, particularly in the presence of contaminating flora [3].

Biochemical Properties

The organism is oxidase-positive, catalase-negative, and reduces nitrates to nitrites [1, 59]. It produces acid from glucose, fructose, and mannose but does not ferment lactose, sucrose, or maltose [1, 59]. The V-factor (NAD) requirement is a key phenotypic feature, although NAD-independent isolates have been reported in South Africa, Mexico, Iran, and other regions [2, 27, 52, 53, 65]. These NAD-independent strains possess alternative metabolic pathways for NAD synthesis and can grow on standard media without supplemental NAD [2, 65].

Serotyping and Antigenic Structure

The Kume hemagglutinin scheme classifies A. paragallinarum into three serogroups (A, B, and C) based on hemagglutinating antigens, with further subdivision into nine serovars (A-1 through A-4, B-1, C-1 through C-4) [49, 50, 56]. Serovar identification is critical for vaccine formulation because cross-protection between serogroups is limited [48, 50, 61]. The hemagglutinin antigens are heat-labile, trypsin-sensitive proteins located on the bacterial surface [45, 46, 74]. The HMTp210 gene encodes a major hemagglutinin that is a target for molecular serotyping [4, 30]. Molecular characterization of the HMTp210 gene has led to the proposition of a new genotyping method as an alternative to classical serotyping [4]. Multiplex PCR and PCR-RFLP methods have been developed for serotyping based on sequence variations in the HMTp210 gene [34, 39].

Virulence Factors

Several virulence factors have been identified in A. paragallinarum. The capsule and lipopolysaccharide contribute to resistance against phagocytosis and complement-mediated killing [1, 59]. The cytolethal distending toxin (CDT) encoded by the cdtABC gene cluster causes host cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in epithelial cells [35]. Hemagglutinins mediate adherence to respiratory epithelial cells, a critical step in colonization [45, 46]. The presence of a polysaccharide capsule is associated with virulence, and non-pathogenic isolates often lack or have reduced capsular expression [5, 6, 7]. Recent studies have identified non-pathogenic A. paragallinarum isolates from naive, healthy layer flocks, suggesting that some strains lack key virulence determinants [5, 6, 7].

Genomic Diversity

Whole-genome sequencing has revealed substantial genomic diversity among A. paragallinarum isolates [8, 6, 9]. A standardized, genome-guided multilocus sequence typing (MLST) scheme has been developed for enhanced epidemiological typing [8]. Genotypic and biochemical divergence has been documented among isolates from different geographic regions, including China, the United States, and the Netherlands [9, 10]. Eight complete and four draft genome sequences of non-pathogenic isolates from the United States have been published, providing a resource for comparative genomics [6].

Clinical Symptoms and Pathogenesis

Incubation Period and Disease Onset

The incubation period for infectious coryza ranges from 1 to 3 days following natural exposure and 24 to 48 hours after experimental inoculation [1, 59]. The disease onset is acute, with rapid spread through a flock within 3 to 7 days [1, 73]. Morbidity rates can reach 80 to 100 percent, while mortality is typically low (1 to 5 percent) unless complicated by secondary infections [1, 66, 73].

Clinical Signs in Chickens

The hallmark clinical signs of infectious coryza include serous to mucopurulent nasal discharge, facial edema (particularly periorbital swelling), conjunctivitis, and sneezing [1, 11, 59]. Affected birds often shake their heads to expel nasal exudate, and the feathers around the nares become matted and soiled [1, 11]. In laying hens, egg production drops by 10 to 40 percent, and egg quality may be compromised [1, 11]. Feed and water consumption decrease, leading to weight loss and reduced growth rates in broilers [1, 73]. Submandibular edema (swollen wattles) is occasionally observed [1, 11]. In severe cases, dyspnea and rales may be present, particularly when secondary pathogens such as Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, Mycoplasma gallisepticum, or Escherichia coli are involved [12, 13, 26, 31, 66, 82].

Extrapulmonary Manifestations

Although infectious coryza is primarily a respiratory disease, extrapulmonary manifestations have been documented. Otitis media and meningoencephalitis associated with A. paragallinarum have been reported in commercial broiler chickens, presenting with torticollis, ataxia, and depression [14]. Endocarditis has been described in broiler breeding hens, often as a coinfection with other bacteria [12]. These extrapulmonary forms are less common but indicate the potential for systemic dissemination under certain conditions [12, 14].

Pathogenesis and Host-Pathogen Interactions

Following inhalation or direct contact with contaminated fomites, A. paragallinarum colonizes the nasal mucosa and upper respiratory tract [15, 59]. The bacterium adheres to ciliated epithelial cells via hemagglutinins and other adhesins [45, 46]. Early migration patterns in experimentally infected chickens and Japanese quail have been visualized using immunohistochemistry, demonstrating bacterial invasion of the nasal epithelium and submucosa within 6 to 12 hours post-infection [15]. The host inflammatory response, characterized by infiltration of heterophils and macrophages, leads to edema, exudation, and epithelial desquamation [15, 26]. The cytolethal distending toxin contributes to epithelial cell damage and immune evasion [35]. Coinfection with Gallibacterium anatis exacerbates clinical signs and histopathological lesions, suggesting synergistic interactions between respiratory pathogens [26].

Differential Diagnosis

The clinical signs of infectious coryza overlap with several other respiratory diseases of poultry, including avian influenza, Newcastle disease, infectious bronchitis, mycoplasmosis, fowl cholera, and ornithobacteriosis [1, 59]. A comprehensive differential diagnosis is essential, and laboratory confirmation is required for definitive diagnosis [1, 59]. Coinfections with Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale and fowl adenovirus have been reported, further complicating clinical diagnosis [12, 13, 31].

Diagnostic Approaches

Sample Collection and Transport

Appropriate sample collection is critical for successful isolation and detection of A. paragallinarum. Samples should be collected from acutely affected birds with active nasal discharge [1, 59]. Suitable specimens include nasal swabs, sinus exudate, and infraorbital sinus aspirates [1, 59]. Swabs should be placed in a transport medium such as Amies medium with charcoal, and samples should be kept cool (4 degrees Celsius) and processed within 24 to 48 hours [1, 51]. The testing and modification of commercially available transport media for A. paragallinarum have been described [51].

Bacteriological Culture and Isolation

Isolation of A. paragallinarum requires enriched media such as chocolate agar, blood agar with a nurse colony, or selective media [3, 1, 59]. The development of selective culture media has improved isolation rates from clinical samples with heavy contaminating flora [3]. Plates are incubated at 37 degrees Celsius in a humidified atmosphere with 5 to 10 percent carbon dioxide for 24 to 48 hours [1, 59]. Suspect colonies are identified based on colony morphology, Gram stain, oxidase reaction, and NAD requirement [1, 59]. Biochemical confirmation can be performed using commercial identification systems or conventional biochemical tests [1, 59]. NAD-independent isolates can be identified by their ability to grow on media without supplemental NAD [2, 27, 65].

Serological Methods

Serological detection of antibodies against A. paragallinarum is used for flock-level surveillance and vaccine response monitoring. The hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test is the reference method for serotyping and antibody detection [1, 44, 76]. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) have been developed for the measurement of antibodies against infectious coryza vaccines [38]. A blocking ELISA has been compared with the HI test for detection of antibodies in sera from artificially infected chickens [44]. Serological methods are less useful for acute diagnosis because antibodies develop 7 to 14 days post-infection [1, 59].

Molecular Diagnostic Methods

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays have become the primary diagnostic tools for rapid and sensitive detection of A. paragallinarum [16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 43, 58, 62]. Conventional PCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene or the HMTp210 gene can detect the organism in clinical samples and differentiate it from other avian bacteria [16, 32, 58, 62]. Real-time PCR (quantitative PCR, qPCR) assays offer higher sensitivity and specificity, with the ability to quantify bacterial load [17, 18, 19]. A probe-based real-time PCR assay has been validated for high-throughput detection of A. paragallinarum in chicken respiratory sites [18, 19]. Another highly sensitive and specific probe-based real-time PCR has been developed for detection in clinical samples [17]. PCR assays have also been developed to differentiate pathogenic from non-pathogenic A. paragallinarum isolates [16].

Serotyping by Molecular Methods

Molecular serotyping methods have been developed as alternatives to traditional HI serotyping. Multiplex PCR and PCR-RFLP targeting the HMTp210 gene can differentiate serovars A, B, and C [34, 39]. A proposed molecular methodology for serotyping has been evaluated and shows good correlation with classical serotyping [30]. Genotyping based on the HMTp210 gene sequence has been proposed as a new method for serovar classification [4].

Lateral Flow Assays

Lateral flow assays (LFAs) have been developed for rapid, point-of-care detection of A. paragallinarum [20, 21]. A lateral flow test for the rapid detection of A. paragallinarum in chickens suspected of having infectious coryza has been described [21]. A novel lateral flow assay for nucleic acid detection of A. paragallinarum using isothermal amplification has also been reported [20]. These assays provide results within 15 to 30 minutes and are suitable for field use [20, 21].

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of A. paragallinarum is important for guiding treatment and monitoring resistance trends. A standardized broth microdilution method has been recommended for AST of A. paragallinarum [22]. Studies have documented antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of isolates from various countries, including the Netherlands, Mexico, Thailand, and Latin American countries [23, 25, 29, 37]. Resistance to sulfonamides, tetracyclines, and some beta-lactams has been reported [23, 25, 29, 37]. The efficacy of norfloxacin nicotinate treatment against A. paragallinarum has been evaluated in broiler breeders [68].

Diagnostic Decision Tree

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a diagnostic decision tree for infectious coryza in poultry.

flowchart TD
    A["Clinical Signs: Nasal discharge, facial edema, conjunctivitis"] --> B{Collect Samples}
    B --> C[Nasal swabs / Sinus aspirates]
    C --> D{Diagnostic Approach}
    D --> E[Bacteriological Culture]
    D --> F[Molecular Detection PCR / qPCR]
    D --> G[Serology HI / ELISA]
    E --> H[Selective / Enriched Media]
    H --> I[Colony Morphology & Gram Stain]
    I --> J[Biochemical Confirmation & NAD Requirement]
    J --> K[Serotyping HI / Molecular]
    F --> L[DNA Extraction]
    L --> M[Conventional PCR / Real-time PCR]
    M --> N[Species Confirmation & Pathogenicity Differentiation]
    G --> O[Acute / Convalescent Sera]
    O --> P[Antibody Detection]
    P --> Q[Flock-Level Surveillance]
    K --> R[Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing]
    N --> R
    R --> S[Treatment Selection & Resistance Monitoring]

Treatment and Control

Antimicrobial Therapy

Treatment of infectious coryza typically involves administration of antimicrobial agents in feed or drinking water. Commonly used antibiotics include sulfonamides, tetracyclines, tylosin, erythromycin, and fluoroquinolones [1, 59, 68]. However, antimicrobial resistance is an increasing concern, and susceptibility testing is recommended to guide therapy [22, 23, 25, 29, 37]. The use of Chinese herbal medicine extracts has been investigated as an alternative to conventional antibiotics [24].

Vaccination

Vaccination is a key component of infectious coryza control programs. Both inactivated bacterins and recombinant vaccines are available [36, 42, 48, 72, 80, 81]. Autogenous bacterins prepared from local isolates are often used to ensure serovar coverage [72]. Bivalent and trivalent bacterins provide protection against prevalent serovars [48]. The efficacy and safety of different antigens and oil formulations have been studied [42]. A recombinant vaccine based on hemagglutinin antigens has been developed [36]. Cross-protection studies have demonstrated that protection is serogroup-specific, emphasizing the importance of including relevant serovars in vaccines [48, 50, 79].

Biosecurity and Management

Biosecurity measures are essential for preventing the introduction and spread of A. paragallinarum. The bacterium is transmitted horizontally via direct contact, aerosol, and contaminated fomites [1, 59]. Strict all-in-all-out management, cleaning and disinfection of facilities, and control of personnel movement are critical [1, 59]. The protection conferred by disinfectants against clinical disease caused by A. paragallinarum has been evaluated [47]. Infected flocks should be isolated, and recovered birds may remain carriers [1, 59].

Epidemiological Considerations

Host Range and Susceptibility

Chickens are the primary host for A. paragallinarum, but the bacterium has also been isolated from Japanese quail, pheasants, and guinea fowl [1, 15, 59]. Turkeys are generally considered resistant to clinical disease [1, 59]. Age susceptibility varies; young birds (3 to 6 weeks of age) are more susceptible to severe disease, although all ages can be affected [1, 59]. Stress factors such as overcrowding, poor ventilation, and concurrent infections exacerbate disease severity [1, 66, 73].

Geographic Distribution

Infectious coryza has a worldwide distribution, with reports from all major poultry-producing regions [1, 59]. Outbreaks have been documented in the United States, Mexico, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia [9, 12, 23, 11, 10, 31, 33, 41, 57, 61, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75]. The prevalence of different serovars varies geographically, and shifts in serovar prevalence have been associated with vaccination failures [61].

Non-pathogenic Isolates

Recent studies have identified non-pathogenic A. paragallinarum isolates in naive, healthy layer flocks in the United States [5, 6, 7]. These isolates lack virulence determinants and do not cause clinical disease in experimental infection models [5]. The prevalence of non-pathogenic isolates in healthy flocks suggests that A. paragallinarum can exist as a commensal in some populations [7]. The presence of non-pathogenic isolates has implications for diagnostic interpretation, as PCR detection alone may not distinguish between pathogenic and non-pathogenic strains [16].

Conclusion

Infectious coryza remains an economically important respiratory disease of poultry caused by Avibacterium paragallinarum. Accurate diagnosis requires a combination of clinical observation, bacteriological culture, molecular detection, and serotyping. Advances in PCR-based diagnostics, including real-time PCR and lateral flow assays, have improved the speed and sensitivity of detection. The emergence of NAD-independent isolates and non-pathogenic strains highlights the need for continued surveillance and characterization of circulating strains. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and vaccination with appropriate serovars are essential for effective control. Future research should focus on the genomic basis of virulence, host-pathogen interactions, and the development of improved vaccines and diagnostic tools.

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] Beiranvand S, Piri-Gharaghie T, Dehganzad B, et al. Novel NAD-independent Avibacterium paragallinarum: Isolation, characterization and molecular identification in Iran. Vet Med Sci. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35182464/

[3] 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/

[4] 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/

[5] 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/

[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] 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/

[8] 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/

[9] 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/

[10] Feberwee A, Dijkman R, Buter R, et al. Identification and characterization of Dutch Avibacterium paragallinarum isolates and the implications for diagnostics. Avian Pathol. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31280592/

[11] Crispo M, Blackall P, Khan A, et al. Characterization of an Outbreak of Infectious Coryza (Avibacterium paragallinarum) in Commercial Chickens in Central California. Avian Dis. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31967433/

[12] 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/

[13] Mei C, Xian H, Blackall PJ, et al. Concurrent infection of Avibacterium paragallinarum and fowl adenovirus in layer chickens. Poult Sci. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33248567/

[14] Crispo M, Sentíes-Cué CG, Cooper GL, et al. Otitis and meningoencephalitis associated with infectious coryza ( Avibacterium paragallinarum) in commercial broiler chickens. J Vet Diagn Invest.

[15] Balouria A, Deshmukh S, Banga HS, et al. Early migration pattern of Avibacterium paragallinarum in the nasal passage of experimentally infected chicken and Japanese quail by immunohistochemistry. Avian Pathol. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30570399/

[16] 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/

[17] Kuchipudi SV, Yon M, Surendran Nair M, et al. A Highly Sensitive and Specific Probe-Based Real-Time PCR for the Detection of Avibacterium paragallinarum in Clinical Samples From Poultry. Front Vet Sci. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33912603/

[18] Clothier KA, Stoute S, Torain A, et al. Validation of a real-time PCR assay for high-throughput detection of Avibacterium paragallinarum in chicken respiratory sites. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31347465/

[19] Clothier KA, Torain A, Reinl S. Surveillance for Avibacterium paragallinarum in autopsy cases of birds from small chicken flocks using a real-time PCR assay. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30973083/

[20] Huo C, Li D, Hu Z, et al. A Novel Lateral Flow Assay for Rapid and Sensitive Nucleic Acid Detection of Avibacterium paragallinarum. Front Vet Sci. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34708102/

[21] Morales Ruiz S, Bendezu J, Choque Guevara R, et al. Development of a lateral flow test for the rapid detection of Avibacterium paragallinarum in chickens suspected of having infectious coryza. BMC Vet Res. 2018. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30567563/

[22] 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/

[23] Luna-Castrejón LP, Buter R, Pantoja-Nuñez GI, et al. Identification, HPG2 Sequence Analysis, and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Avibacterium paragallinarum Isolates Obtained from Outbreaks of Infectious Coryza in Commercial Layers in Sonora State, Mexico. Avian Dis. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34339129/

[24] 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/

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.