Infectious Coryza in Poultry and Ducks: Etiology, Clinical Signs in Chickens, Differential Diagnosis from Avian Influenza, and Prevention Strategies

Introduction

Infectious coryza (IC) is an acute respiratory disease of chickens, ducks, and other avian species caused by the bacterium Avibacterium paragallinarum (formerly Haemophilus paragallinarum). The disease is characterized by catarrhal inflammation of the upper respiratory tract, facial edema, and ocular and nasal discharges [1, 63]. Infectious coryza remains a significant economic concern for commercial poultry operations worldwide due to reduced egg production, increased culling, and heightened susceptibility to secondary infections [2, 3, 4, 5]. The disease is classified as a notifiable condition in several jurisdictions, and its clinical presentation can mimic viral respiratory infections, most notably highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) [1, 6]. This article provides a detailed review of the etiology, clinical signs in chickens, differential diagnosis from avian influenza, and current prevention strategies for infectious coryza, with reference to the most recent peer-reviewed literature and standard veterinary textbooks.

Etiology and Bacteriology

Taxonomic Classification and Morphology

Avibacterium paragallinarum is a Gram-negative, pleomorphic, non-motile, non-spore-forming coccobacillus belonging to the family Pasteurellaceae [1]. The organism requires nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD, V factor) for in vitro growth, although NAD-independent variants have been reported in several geographic regions [48, 66, 77, 86]. The bacterium is catalase-negative, oxidase-positive, and reduces nitrates [1]. Colonial morphology on blood agar or chocolate agar appears as dew-drop-like, translucent colonies after 24 to 48 hours of incubation under microaerophilic conditions (5-10% CO₂) [7].

Serotyping and Antigenic Diversity

Two major serotyping schemes are used for A. paragallinarum: the Page scheme, which defines serovars A, B, and C, and the Kume scheme, which further subdivides serovars into A-1 to A-4, B-1, and C-1 to C-4 [1, 52, 62, 78]. The hemagglutinin HMTp210 protein is the primary antigen responsible for serovar specificity and is a target for vaccine development and molecular serotyping [8, 42, 52, 83]. Reverse vaccinology approaches have identified additional candidate antigens for cross-protective vaccines [9]. Recent genomic studies have uncovered novel genotypes in various regions, including Iran [10], China [11, 12], Ethiopia [13], and the United States [14, 15, 16, 61], indicating substantial antigenic and genetic diversity.

Pathogenesis and Virulence Factors

The pathogenesis of A. paragallinarum involves colonization of the upper respiratory tract epithelium, followed by invasion of the nasal mucosa and sinuses. The bacterium produces a lipooligosaccharide (LOS) and a capsular polysaccharide (CPS), both of which contribute to virulence and immune evasion [17]. Biofilm formation is a recognized mechanism for persistence within the host and on fomites, with genes involved in biofilm formation identified through transposon mutagenesis [18, 19]. The organism employs iron acquisition systems, including heme utilization pathways, to survive within the iron-limited host environment. Natural transformation competence allows horizontal gene transfer, facilitating the spread of antimicrobial resistance determinants and virulence factors [43, 46]. Outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) released by A. paragallinarum contain immunogenic proteins and can transfer antibiotic resistance genes to other bacteria [46, 59]. The bacterium can also interact with commensal respiratory microbiota, with certain resident species promoting its growth [44, 56].

Antimicrobial Resistance

Widespread antimicrobial resistance has been documented in A. paragallinarum isolates globally [11, 20, 21, 74, 82]. Resistance to sulfonamides, tetracyclines, and macrolides is common, and multidrug-resistant strains have been identified, particularly in China [11, 20] and the Netherlands. Standardized broth microdilution methods have been developed to monitor resistance trends [21]. The presence of plasmid-mediated resistance genes and the ability to transfer resistance via OMVs complicate control efforts.

Clinical Signs in Chickens

Acute Form

The incubation period of infectious coryza is typically 1 to 3 days following natural exposure, with clinical signs appearing within 24 to 48 hours after experimental inoculation [50, 70]. The classic presentation includes serous to mucopurulent nasal discharge, sneezing, facial edema (swelling of the wattles, comb, and periorbital sinuses), conjunctivitis, and lacrimation [1, 64, 68]. The infraorbital sinuses become distended with exudate, leading to characteristic "swollen head" appearance [22]. Affected birds exhibit depression, anorexia, and a sharp drop in egg production (10% to 50%) in laying flocks [23, 3, 4, 64]. Respiratory rates become elevated, and audible rales may be auscultated. Mortality is generally low (<5%) in uncomplicated cases, but can increase substantially with secondary infections (e.g., Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, Gallibacterium anatis, Mycoplasma spp., or Escherichia coli) [5, 57, 75, 79, 84].

Chronic and Subclinical Forms

Chronic infection may persist in flocks with mild or intermittent signs such as low-grade nasal discharge, reduced feed intake, and gradual decline in egg quality [1]. Subclinically infected birds can serve as reservoirs, shedding the organism intermittently, especially under stress [24, 2, 16]. Nonpathogenic isolates have been recovered from clinically healthy flocks, potentially complicating diagnostic interpretation [25, 15, 24].

Extrarcspiratory Manifestations

In some cases, A. paragallinarum can cause otitis media and meningoencephalitis, particularly in broiler chickens, leading to torticollis, ataxia, and mortality. Endocarditis has also been reported in broiler breeding hens [5]. Coinfections with fowl adenovirus or Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae have been documented, mimicking infectious coryza.

Clinical Signs in Ducks

Infectious coryza in ducks shares similar features but is often less severe. Nasal discharge, ocular edema, and sinusitis are observed, but facial swelling may be less pronounced than in chickens. Ducks are considered less susceptible, and outbreaks are less frequently reported in the literature [1, 63].

Differential Diagnosis from Avian Influenza

Clinical Overlap

The clinical signs of infectious coryza can closely resemble those of avian influenza (AI), particularly low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) strains that cause mild respiratory disease, and even highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in the early stages [1, 6]. Both conditions may present with nasal discharge, sinus swelling, conjunctivitis, depression, and decreased egg production. However, HPAI is typically associated with more severe systemic signs, including cyanosis of comb and wattles, hemorrhagic lesions on shanks, bruising, and sudden high mortality [1]. Infectious coryza rarely causes the dramatic mortality or the visceral hemorrhages characteristic of HPAI.

Key Differentiating Features

The table below summarizes the clinical and pathological features that aid in differentiating infectious coryza from avian influenza (AI):

Adapted from [1, 6, 64, 72].

Diagnostic Confirmation

Definitive differentiation requires laboratory confirmation. Avian influenza is diagnosed by real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) targeting the matrix (M) gene, followed by H5/H7 subtyping and pathotyping by sequencing the hemagglutinin cleavage site. Infectious coryza is diagnosed by bacterial isolation on selective media (e.g., blood agar with a nurse colony of Staphylococcus epidermidis for NAD supply) [7] or by molecular methods such as PCR assays targeting the HMTp210 gene or the 16S rRNA gene [26, 22, 54, 67, 69, 76, 90]. Probe-based real-time PCR assays offer high sensitivity and specificity [54, 67], and a novel lateral flow assay allows rapid field detection [51, 71].

Diagnostic Workflow

The following Mermaid diagram outlines a clinical decision tree for differential diagnosis:

flowchart TD
 A["Flocks with respiratory signs, facial edema, and egg drop"]
 B["Compatible with AI or IC"]
 C["Collect tracheal/nasal swabs and serum"]
 D["Submit for AI RT-qPCR and bacterial culture"]
 E["AI positive? Cease, notify authorities"]
 F["AI negative? Proceed to IC testing"]
 G["Culture for A. paragallinarum on selective media [<a href="#ref-7">7</a>]"]
 H["PCR: HMTp210 or real-time PCR [54, 67]"]
 I["If negative? Consider other agents: ORT, MG, MS, G. anatis [75, 79, 84]"]
 A --> B
 B --> C
 C --> D
 D --> E
 E -->|Yes| X["Manage as AI outbreak"]
 E -->|No| F
 F --> G
 G --> H
 H --> I

Prevention Strategies

Biosecurity Measures

Infectious coryza is transmitted horizontally via direct contact, aerosol droplets, and contaminated fomites (e.g., feed, water, equipment, personnel) [1, 64]. The bacterium does not survive extended periods in the environment but can persist in organic material and water for several days. Strict biosecurity protocols are essential: all-in/all-out management, cleaning and disinfection of housing between flocks, footbaths, and dedicated equipment for each house [2, 3]. Case-control studies have identified risk factors such as multi-age stocking, poor ventilation, and introduction of new birds without quarantine [2, 4, 6]. Rodent and insect vectors are not considered significant for A. paragallinarum, but ectoparasites like Dermanyssus gallinae (see Ectoparasites of Poultry) may contribute to stress and secondary infections.

Vaccination

Vaccination is a cornerstone of infectious coryza control. Both inactivated (bacterin) and live attenuated vaccines are available, as well as autogenous vaccines for specific serovars [27, 28, 45, 47, 63, 73, 85, 87, 91]. Effective vaccine selection requires matching the circulating serovar. The HMTp210 hemagglutinin is a critical immunogen, and molecular genotyping of the HMTp210 gene can guide vaccine choice [42, 65, 78]. Subunit vaccines based on reverse vaccinology predictions are under development [9, 29]. Polymeric nanocarrier adjuvants have been shown to enhance mucosal immune responses [30]. Probiotic formulations with berry phenolic extracts may also support immunity [31]. Vaccination schedules typically involve two doses administered at 8 to 12 weeks and 16 to 18 weeks of age, with boosters every 6 months in endemic areas [27, 45, 47, 85]. Live attenuated vaccines (e.g., serovar A and C strains) are used in some regions to induce local immunity [28, 63].

Antimicrobial Therapy and Alternative Approaches

While antibiotics such as sulfonamides, tetracyclines, and macrolides are effective in reducing clinical signs, the emergence of resistance limits their utility [11, 20, 21, 74, 82]. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (broth microdilution) should guide drug selection [21]. Chinese herbal medicine extracts have demonstrated bacteriostatic activity against A. paragallinarum in vitro, offering potential alternative therapies [32]. However, regulatory approval and field efficacy data remain limited.

Flock Management and Surveillance

Early detection through surveillance of respiratory signs and routine monitoring of egg production is critical. Diagnostic tools such as PCR assays [26, 22, 54, 67, 69, 90] and lateral flow tests [51, 71] enable rapid identification. Once diagnosed, infected flocks should be isolated and movement of birds and equipment restricted. Depopulation of affected houses followed by thorough cleaning and disinfection can eliminate the pathogen. Long-term management includes maintaining NAD-independent strains in culture collections to monitor evolutionary trends [48, 66, 77, 86].

Conclusion

Infectious coryza remains a globally significant respiratory disease of poultry and ducks, caused by the genetically and antigenically diverse Avibacterium paragallinarum. Accurate differential diagnosis from avian influenza is essential for appropriate response and trade implications. The clinical presentation in chickens, nasal discharge, facial edema, and egg production drop, can overlap with AI, but laboratory testing using PCR-based methods and bacterial culture provides definitive distinction. Effective prevention integrates biosecurity, vaccination tailored to local serovars, and prudent antimicrobial use. Continued genomic surveillance and novel vaccine strategies [9, 29, 28, 30] will be vital for sustainable control.

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] 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/

[3] 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/

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

[5] 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/

[6] 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/

[7] 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/

[9] Felici ME, Castell SD, Marconi G et al. Identification of candidate antigens for a vaccine against Avibacterium paragallinarum using reverse vaccinology. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42302611/

[10] 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/

[11] Li XP, Li G, Lin W et al. Antimicrobial resistance patterns and genomic characterization of Avibacterium paragallinarum isolates collected in China from 2013 to 2021. BMC Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42192284/

[12] 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/

[13] 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/

[14] Coertzen A, Erasmus M, McCarlie SJ et al. Draft genome sequence of the HP60 serovar of Avibacterium paragallinarum. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41020633/

[15] 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/

[16] Hashish A, Chaves M, Macedo NR et al. Complete genome sequences generated using hybrid Nanopore-Illumina assembly of two non-typical Avibacterium paragallinarum strains isolated from clinically normal chicken flocks. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37655879/

[17] 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/

[18] Fan B, Su Q, Shao Y et al. Construction of a Mutant Library of Avibacterium paragallinarum Transposons and Screening and Preliminary Study of Genes Related to Biofilm Formation. Microorganisms. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42075179/

[19] Guo M, Wang H, Zhang H et al. Identifcation 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/

[20] 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/

[21] 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/

[22] Putra FN, Wahyuni AETH, Sutrisno B. Molecular detection and pyrG sequence analysis of Avibacterium paragallinarum using clinical samples of infraorbital exudates from layer chickens with infectious coryza symptoms in Indonesia. Vet World. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37766719/

[23] 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/

[24] 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/

[25] 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/

[26] 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/

[27] 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/

[28] 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/

[29] Li Z, Liu Y, Liu Z et al. Avibacterium paragallinarum: Pathogenesis Mechanisms and Subunit Vaccine Development. Microorganisms. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42197478/

[30] 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/

[31] 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/

[32] 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/

[33] 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/

[34] 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/

[35] 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/

[36] 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/

[37] 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/

[38] 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/

[39] Li D, Huo C, Li G et al. The absence of luxS reduces the invasion of Avibacterium paragallinarum but is not essential for virulence. Front Vet Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39263678/

[40] Putnam M, Mills J, Markis M et al. Advancement of Autogenous Vaccines in the Poultry Industry. Avian Dis. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38300663/

[41] 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/

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.