Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Poultry: Chronic Respiratory Disease and Diagnostic Approaches

Introduction

Mycoplasma gallisepticum is a cell wall deficient bacterium belonging to the class Mollicutes and is the primary etiological agent of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) in chickens and infectious sinusitis in turkeys [1, 2]. The organism is highly adapted to the avian respiratory tract, where it colonizes the mucosal epithelium of the trachea, air sacs, and conjunctiva [3]. Infection with M. gallisepticum results in substantial economic losses to the poultry industry through reduced egg production, increased mortality, carcass condemnation at slaughter, and costs associated with medication and vaccination [4, 5]. Accurate and timely diagnosis is critical for implementing control measures and preventing vertical transmission via the egg [6]. This article provides an exhaustive review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical impact, and diagnostic approaches for M. gallisepticum infection in poultry, with a focus on the comparative utility of serological and molecular methods.

Epidemiology

M. gallisepticum has a worldwide distribution and affects multiple avian species, including chickens, turkeys, game birds, and occasionally passerines [7, 8]. Transmission occurs horizontally through direct contact, aerosolized respiratory secretions, and contaminated fomites, as well as vertically through the transovarian route from infected breeder hens to progeny [9, 10]. The bacterium can persist in the environment for limited periods, particularly in organic material and water, facilitating indirect transmission within and between flocks [11]. Risk factors for introduction and spread include high stocking density, poor ventilation, concurrent viral or bacterial infections (e.g., Newcastle disease virus, infectious bronchitis virus, Escherichia coli), and stress from transport or vaccination [12, 13]. In multi-age production systems, M. gallisepticum often circulates endemically, with subclinically infected carriers serving as reservoirs [14].

Pathogenesis

The pathogenesis of M. gallisepticum infection involves adhesion to host respiratory epithelial cells via specialized surface proteins, including the GapA cytadhesin and the CrmA accessory protein [15, 16]. Following attachment, the bacterium induces ciliostasis, loss of ciliated epithelial cells, and infiltration of mononuclear inflammatory cells into the lamina propria [17]. The host inflammatory response, characterized by the release of cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta and tumor necrosis factor alpha, contributes to tissue damage and the formation of caseous exudates in the air sacs and trachea [18]. In laying hens, the infection can spread to the reproductive tract, leading to salpingitis and oophoritis, which directly impair egg formation and quality [19]. Coinfection with other respiratory pathogens, particularly E. coli and infectious bronchitis virus, exacerbates the severity of lesions and clinical signs [20].

Clinical Signs and Impact on Egg Production and Welfare

Clinical manifestations of M. gallisepticum infection vary with host age, immune status, and environmental conditions. In broilers, the disease typically presents as chronic respiratory disease with coughing, sneezing, nasal discharge, and rales [21]. In turkeys, sinusitis with infraorbital swelling is a hallmark sign [22]. In laying hens, infection leads to a drop in egg production of 10 to 30 percent, reduced egg size, increased numbers of shell-less and thin-shelled eggs, and decreased hatchability [23, 24]. The economic impact is compounded by increased feed conversion ratios, higher mortality rates (often due to secondary bacterial infections), and carcass downgrades at processing [25]. Welfare implications include respiratory distress, ocular discomfort, and reduced mobility in birds with severe airsacculitis [26].

Diagnostic Approaches

Diagnosis of M. gallisepticum infection relies on a combination of clinical observation, serological testing, molecular detection, and culture. Each method has distinct advantages and limitations regarding sensitivity, specificity, turnaround time, and cost.

Serological Methods

Serological assays detect antibodies produced in response to M. gallisepticum infection or vaccination. The most commonly used serological tests are the rapid serum agglutination (RSA) test, the hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) [27, 28].

The RSA test is a simple, inexpensive, and rapid screening tool that uses stained M. gallisepticum antigen mixed with serum or plasma. Agglutination indicates the presence of antibodies. However, the RSA test has limited specificity due to cross-reactivity with other avian mycoplasmas, particularly M. synoviae [29]. The HI test is more specific and is often used as a confirmatory assay. It measures the ability of serum antibodies to inhibit hemagglutination by M. gallisepticum [30]. The HI test is labor-intensive and requires standardized antigen and erythrocytes.

Commercial ELISA kits offer high throughput, objective quantification of antibody levels, and the ability to differentiate between M. gallisepticum and M. synoviae using species-specific antigens [31]. ELISA is the preferred method for large-scale surveillance and monitoring of vaccination responses. However, serological methods cannot distinguish between antibodies induced by natural infection and those from vaccination, and they have a window period of 1 to 2 weeks post-infection before seroconversion occurs [32].

Molecular Methods

Molecular detection of M. gallisepticum nucleic acid provides direct evidence of the pathogen and offers high sensitivity and specificity. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays targeting conserved genes such as the 16S rRNA gene, the mgc2 gene, or the gapA gene are widely used [33, 34]. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) allows quantification of bacterial load and can be performed on tracheal swabs, choanal cleft swabs, air sac exudates, or egg contents [35, 36].

Advantages of PCR include rapid turnaround time (2 to 4 hours), the ability to detect non-viable organisms, and the capacity to differentiate M. gallisepticum from other mycoplasma species through multiplex PCR formats [37]. Nested PCR and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays have been developed for field use, offering enhanced sensitivity and reduced reliance on thermal cyclers [38, 39]. Molecular methods are particularly valuable for detecting early infections before seroconversion and for confirming vertical transmission in embryos and day-old chicks [40].

Culture and Isolation

Culture of M. gallisepticum from clinical specimens remains the gold standard for definitive diagnosis but is technically demanding and time-consuming. The organism requires specialized mycoplasma media (e.g., Frey's medium or Hayflick's medium) supplemented with serum and yeast extract, and incubation in a microaerophilic atmosphere with 5 to 10 percent carbon dioxide at 37 degrees Celsius [41]. Colonies typically appear after 3 to 10 days as small, fried-egg shaped colonies on agar. Isolation is essential for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and epidemiological typing, but its low sensitivity (especially in samples from chronically infected or treated birds) limits its routine use [42].

Comparative Diagnostic Performance

The following table summarizes the key characteristics of the main diagnostic methods for M. gallisepticum.

Diagnostic Decision Tree

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a recommended diagnostic workflow for M. gallisepticum in poultry flocks.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical signs of CRD or egg drop], > B{Flock history?}
    B, >|Vaccinated| C[Serology: ELISA or HI]
    B, >|Unvaccinated| D[Collect tracheal swabs]
    C, > E{Antibody positive?}
    E, >|Yes| F[PCR on swabs for confirmation]
    E, >|No| G[Consider other causes]
    D, > H[PCR for M. gallisepticum]
    H, > I{Positive?}
    I, >|Yes| J[Confirm with culture if needed]
    I, >|No| K[Test for M. synoviae or other pathogens]
    F, > L[Positive PCR confirms infection]
    J, > M[Antimicrobial susceptibility testing]

Impact on Control and Eradication Programs

Diagnostic testing is integral to M. gallisepticum control programs. In breeding flocks, routine serological monitoring combined with PCR testing of eggs or chicks is used to maintain mycoplasma-free status [43]. Eradication strategies often involve depopulation of infected flocks, strict biosecurity, and the use of antimicrobial therapy (e.g., tylosin, tiamulin, enrofloxacin) to reduce bacterial load, although resistance has been reported [44, 45]. Vaccination with live attenuated or inactivated vaccines can reduce clinical signs and egg production losses but does not prevent infection or shedding [46]. Therefore, diagnostic differentiation between vaccine strains and field strains is essential, and molecular typing methods such as random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis or multilocus sequence typing (MLST) are employed for epidemiological investigations [47, 48].

Conclusion

Mycoplasma gallisepticum remains a major pathogen of poultry, causing chronic respiratory disease and significant economic losses through reduced egg production and compromised welfare. Accurate diagnosis is essential for effective disease management. Serological methods, particularly ELISA, are suitable for flock-level surveillance, while molecular methods such as PCR provide high sensitivity and specificity for early detection and confirmation. Culture, though laborious, remains important for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and strain characterization. Integration of multiple diagnostic modalities, guided by clinical and epidemiological context, enables informed decision-making for control and eradication programs.

References

[1] Ley DH. Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection. In: Swayne DE, editor. Diseases of Poultry. 14th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2020. p. 922-961.

[2] Kleven SH. Mycoplasmas in the etiology of multifactorial respiratory disease. Poult Sci. 1998;77(8):1146-1149.

[3] Razin S, Yogev D, Naot Y. Molecular biology and pathogenicity of mycoplasmas. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998;62(4):1094-1156.

[4] Mohammed HO, Carpenter TE, Yamamoto R. Economic impact of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and M. synoviae in commercial layer flocks. Avian Dis. 1987;31(3):477-482.

[5] Stipkovits L, Kempf I. Mycoplasmoses in poultry. Rev Sci Tech. 1996;15(4):1495-1525.

[6] Marois C, Dufour-Gesbert F, Kempf I. Detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum by PCR in field samples. Vet Microbiol. 2002;89(2-3):197-206.

[7] Bencina D, Bradbury JM. Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in turkeys. Avian Pathol. 1992;21(4):557-568.

[8] Luttrell MP, Stallknecht DE, Kleven SH, et al. Mycoplasma gallisepticum in house finches: a review. J Wildl Dis. 2001;37(1):1-13.

[9] Roberts DH, McDaniel JW. Mechanisms of egg transmission of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1967;11(4):509-516.

[10] Yoder HW Jr. A review of the laboratory and field aspects of mycoplasmosis in poultry. Avian Dis. 1970;14(2):291-302.

[11] Christensen NH, Yavari CA, McBain AJ, Bradbury JM. Investigations into the survival of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in the environment. Avian Pathol. 1994;23(1):61-71.

[12] Gross WB. Factors affecting the development of respiratory disease in chickens. Avian Dis. 1990;34(3):607-610.

[13] Kleven SH. Influence of infectious bursal disease virus on the severity of Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection. Avian Dis. 1985;29(3):707-714.

[14] Evans JD, Leigh SA, Branton SL, et al. Mycoplasma gallisepticum: current and developing strategies for control. Avian Dis. 2005;49(4):467-475.

[15] Goh MS, Gorton TS, Forsyth MH, et al. Molecular and biochemical analysis of a 105-kilodalton Mycoplasma gallisepticum cytadhesin (GapA). J Bacteriol. 1998;180(18):4783-4789.

[16] May M, Brown DR. Genetic variation in the gapA gene of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Microbiology. 2009;155(Pt 12):4079-4088.

[17] Nunoya T, Yagihashi T, Tajima M, Nagasawa Y. Pathology of the respiratory tract of chickens experimentally infected with Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1987;31(4):770-777.

[18] Gaunson JE, Philip CJ, Whithear KG, Browning GF. The cellular immune response in the tracheal mucosa to Mycoplasma gallisepticum in vaccinated and unvaccinated chickens. Vaccine. 2006;24(15):2831-2839.

[19] Pruthi AK, Singh M, Singh B. Pathology of reproductive tract in laying hens infected with Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Indian J Poult Sci. 2003;38(2):145-148.

[20] Springer WT, Luskus C, Pourciau SS. Infectious bronchitis and Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens. Avian Dis. 1974;18(4):590-598.

[21] Jordan FTW. Avian mycoplasmas. In: Jordan FTW, Pattison M, editors. Poultry Diseases. 4th ed. Saunders; 1996. p. 81-93.

[22] Chin RP, Daft BM, Meteyer CU, Yamamoto R. Sinusitis in turkeys associated with Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1991;35(4):866-870.

[23] Branton SL, Lott BD, May JD, et al. The effects of Mycoplasma gallisepticum on egg production and egg quality in commercial layers. Poult Sci. 1988;67(8):1136-1140.

[24] Burnham MR, Branton SL, Peebles ED, et al. Effects of F-strain Mycoplasma gallisepticum inoculation on egg production and hatchability in commercial layers. Avian Dis. 2002;46(3):618-623.

[25] Carpenter TE, Mallinson ET, Miller KF, et al. Economic impact of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in broiler breeders. Avian Dis. 1981;25(4):884-893.

[26] Broom DM, Fraser AF. Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare. 5th ed. CABI; 2015.

[27] Yoder HW Jr. Serologic response of chickens to Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1975;19(3):534-541.

[28] Talkington FD, Kleven SH, Brown J. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of antibodies to Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1985;29(1):53-70.

[29] Avakian AP, Kleven SH, Glisson JR. Evaluation of the specificity and sensitivity of two commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits for the detection of antibodies to Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1988;32(2):262-269.

[30] Vardaman TH, Drott JH. Comparison of the hemagglutination-inhibition and serum plate agglutination tests for detecting antibodies to Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1970;14(3):533-539.

[31] Kempf I, Gesbert F, Guittet M. Comparison of three serological tests for the detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum antibodies in chickens. Avian Pathol. 1994;23(4):697-706.

[32] Kleven SH. Serological monitoring of mycoplasma infections in poultry. In: Proceedings of the 40th Western Poultry Disease Conference; 1991. p. 45-48.

[33] Garcia M, Ikuta N, Levisohn S, Kleven SH. Evaluation and comparison of various PCR methods for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 2005;49(1):125-132.

[34] Raviv Z, Callison SA, Ferguson-Noel N, et al. The Mycoplasma gallisepticum 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer region as a novel target for detection by PCR. Avian Dis. 2007;51(4):865-870.

[35] Callison SA, Riblet SM, Sun S, et al. Development and validation of a real-time Taqman PCR assay for the detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 2006;50(4):537-544.

[36] Marois C, Oufour-Gesbert F, Kempf I. Detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in eggs and embryos using PCR. Vet Microbiol. 2000;76(3):279-287.

[37] Lierz M, Hagen N, Harcourt-Brown N, et al. Prevalence of mycoplasmas in eggs from commercial layer flocks. Avian Pathol. 2008;37(5):519-523.

[38] Lauerman LH, Hoerr FJ, Sharpton AR, et al. Development and application of a polymerase chain reaction assay for Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1993;37(2):381-388.

[39] Fiorentin L, Morsella CG, Gimeno EJ, et al. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2010;22(4):573-577.

[40] Kempf I, Gesbert F, Guittet M, et al. Detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in day-old chicks by PCR. Avian Pathol. 1996;25(4):763-771.

[41] Frey ML, Hanson RP, Anderson DP. A medium for the isolation of avian mycoplasmas. Am J Vet Res. 1968;29(11):2163-2171.

[42] Bradbury JM. Recovery of mycoplasmas from birds. In: Miles RJ, Nicholas RAJ, editors. Mycoplasma Protocols. Humana Press; 1998. p. 45-52.

[43] Kleven SH. Control of avian mycoplasma infections in commercial poultry. Avian Dis. 2008;52(3):367-374.

[44] Jordan FTW, Horrocks BK. The minimum inhibitory concentration of some antibiotics for avian mycoplasmas. Vet Rec. 1975;96(16):357-360.

[45] Gautier-Bouchardon AV, Kempf I. Antimicrobial resistance in Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Vet Microbiol. 2014;170(3-4):207-214.

[46] Whithear KG. Control of avian mycoplasmoses by vaccination. Rev Sci Tech. 1996;15(4):1527-1553.

[47] Geary SJ, Forsyth MH, Aboul Saoud S, et al. Random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 1994;38(4):763-771.

[48] Ferguson-Noel NM, Cookson KC, Laibinis VA, Kleven SH. Multilocus sequence typing of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 2012;56(3):537-544.

[49] Levisohn S, Kleven SH. Avian mycoplasmosis (Mycoplasma gallisepticum). Rev Sci Tech. 2000;19(2):425-442.

[50] Bradbury JM, Yavari CA, Dare CM. Detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in chickens by PCR and culture. Vet Rec. 2001;148(15):467-470.