Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Chickens: Transmission Dynamics and Control

Etiology

Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) is a cell wall‑deficient bacterium belonging to the class Mollicutes. The organism is an obligate parasite of the avian respiratory tract and is the primary aetiological agent of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) in chickens and infectious sinusitis in turkeys [1, 2]. MG is characterised by a small genome (~1.0 Mb) that lacks genes for cell wall synthesis, conferring intrinsic resistance to beta‑lactam antibiotics and a dependence on host‑derived nutrients [3]. The bacterium adheres to host epithelial cells via specialized attachment organelles, a process mediated by cytadhesin proteins such as GapA and CrmA [4]. Once attached, MG induces ciliostasis, mucosal inflammation, and exudate accumulation, leading to the clinical signs classically associated with CRD [5].

MG isolates exhibit considerable genetic and antigenic diversity. Studies comparing field isolates from Jordan with live vaccine strains have revealed genotypic differences that can influence virulence and vaccine efficacy [1]. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) has been employed to characterise MG populations, demonstrating distinct sequence types circulating in different geographical regions [6]. Low‑virulence strains have been described that produce subclinical infections, complicating detection and control [7].

How is Mycoplasma Spread in Chickens: Transmission Dynamics

Understanding how MG spreads within and between chicken flocks is fundamental to designing effective control programs. Transmission occurs via two principal routes: horizontal and vertical.

Horizontal Transmission

Horizontal transmission is the most common mechanism of flock‑to‑flock and within‑flock spread. MG is shed in high concentrations in respiratory exudates, aerosols, and dust particles [8]. Direct bird‑to‑bird contact allows the bacterium to colonise the upper respiratory tract of susceptible hosts. Aerosol transmission over short distances is efficient, particularly in confined poultry houses with high stocking densities [9]. Contaminated fomites (e.g., footwear, equipment, feed trucks) and personnel movement also contribute to lateral spread [10].

Free‑flying birds, including sparrows, pigeons, and starlings, can act as reservoirs and mechanical vectors. Experimental infection of sparrows and pigeons demonstrated that these species can harbour MG and excrete the organism, thereby facilitating introduction into naive chicken flocks [11]. Seroprevalence surveys in wild birds in Belgium have confirmed MG antibodies in a range of species, supporting the role of wild avifauna in the epidemiology of MG [12, 13]. Similarly, a study in Malaysia detected MG in free‑flying birds near commercial poultry farms, indicating that wild birds can bridge the gap between infected and uninfected premises [10, 14].

Vertical Transmission

MG is transmitted vertically from infected breeder hens to progeny via the egg. The organism colonises the oviduct and is incorporated into the developing egg before shell formation [5]. Infected chicks hatched from such eggs are immediately colonised and may appear clinically normal or develop respiratory signs within days [15]. Vertical transmission is a key obstacle to eradication, as it perpetuates infection across generations. Flocks established from infected breeder stock frequently exhibit a high prevalence of MG within the first few weeks of life [8].

Risk Factors for Spread

Several management factors amplify transmission risk. High bird density, poor ventilation, concurrent infections (e.g., Newcastle disease virus, infectious bronchitis virus, or Escherichia coli), and immunosuppression (e.g., from Marek’s disease) exacerbate MG shedding and clinical expression [9, 16]. Seasonal effects, such as cold stress, also increase susceptibility [4]. In a serological survey of broiler breeders in Pakistan, the prevalence of MG antibodies varied significantly with flock size, age, and season, with larger flocks and older birds showing higher seropositivity [4].

A meta‑analysis of pooled molecular occurrence data for MG in poultry across multiple studies reported a global pooled occurrence of approximately 12% (95% CI: 8‑16%), with considerable heterogeneity explained by diagnostic method, geographic region, and production type [17]. This underscores the endemic nature of MG in many commercial poultry populations.

Biophysical Mechanisms of Adherence and Colonisation

Following inhalation, MG adheres to the ciliated epithelium of the trachea and air sacs. The attachment is mediated by a terminal tip organelle that contains cytadhesin proteins interacting with host sialoglycoconjugates [7]. Once attached, the bacterium produces hydrogen peroxide and superoxide radicals, causing oxidative damage to host cells and triggering an inflammatory cascade [3]. This results in ciliostasis, desquamation of epithelial cells, and accumulation of mucoid to caseous exudate in the airways. The organism can also invade and survive within host cells, evading immune clearance and establishing persistent infection [11, 7].

Clinical Signs and Pathology

MG infection in chickens can range from subclinical to severe, depending on strain virulence, host immunity, and environmental stressors [7]. The classical presentation of CRD includes tracheal rales, coughing, sneezing, nasal discharge, and conjunctivitis. In broilers, growth retardation and increased feed conversion ratio are common [2, 4]. Layers and breeders experience decreased egg production, reduced hatchability, and increased embryo mortality [8, 15].

Post‑mortem lesions typically consist of catarrhal to fibrinous tracheitis, airsacculitis (with or without caseous exudate), and perihepatitis when complicated by E. coli [9]. The respiratory tract lining appears thickened and hyperaemic. In turkeys, infraorbital sinus swelling is characteristic [5].

Diagnostics

Accurate and timely diagnosis of MG is essential for both outbreak confirmation and flock monitoring. A combination of serological, culture, and molecular methods is recommended [3, 18].

Serological Tests

Serological screening is widely used due to its ease and cost‑effectiveness. The rapid slide agglutination (RSA) test detects agglutinating antibodies and is often used for initial screening. In a study of 38 commercial broiler farms in Iran, 63.1% of farms were positive by RSA, but only 55.2% were confirmed by ELISA [2]. This highlights the importance of confirmatory testing. The enzyme‑linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) provides quantitative antibody titres and is more specific than RSA [4, 8]. In commercial layer flocks in Ibadan, Nigeria, an overall MG seroprevalence of 74.3% was detected using indirect ELISA [8]. However, serological cross‑reactions with Mycoplasma synoviae can occur, necessitating molecular confirmation [3, 19].

Culture and Isolation

Mycoplasma culture is the gold standard but is time‑consuming and technically demanding. MG grows slowly on specialised media (e.g., Frey’s medium) and requires a microaerophilic atmosphere at 37°C. In the aforementioned Iranian study, only 23.7% of farms yielded positive cultures, and 21.1% were confirmed as MG by PCR [2]. Culture is essential for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, as MG isolates may show reduced sensitivity to commonly used antimicrobials such as tylosin. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) studies revealed a geometric mean MIC of 5.75 µg/mL for tylosin, with an MIC90 of 8 µg/mL, suggesting emerging resistance [2].

Molecular Detection

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real‑time PCR offer high sensitivity and rapid turnaround. A real‑time PCR assay capable of simultaneously detecting MG and Mycoplasma synoviae has been developed and validated under field conditions [9]. This assay targets conserved regions of the 16S rRNA gene and the mgc2 gene for MG discrimination. Molecular detection is particularly valuable for identifying subclinical infections and for confirming positive serological results [18]. A recent molecular investigation in Tunisian laying‑hen farms used PCR‑based methods to detect MG in clinical samples, demonstrating the utility of PCR in field surveillance [18].

Pooled molecular occurrence estimates from a systematic review indicate that PCR‑based studies report a higher prevalence than culture‑based studies, underscoring the superior sensitivity of molecular methods [17]. MLST provides genotyping resolution for epidemiological tracking of MG strains [6].

Diagnostic Workflow

The following Mermaid diagram outlines a recommended diagnostic decision tree for MG detection in a flock:

flowchart TD
    A[Flock with suspected MG], > B{Serological screening: RSA}
    B, Positive, > C[Confirm with ELISA]
    B, Negative, > D[No further action unless clinical signs persist]
    C, Positive, > E[Collect tracheal swabs for PCR]
    C, Negative, > D
    E, Positive, > F[Confirm MG; consider culture & MIC for treatment guidance]
    E, Negative, > G[Consider other aetiologies (e.g., MS, IBV, NDV)]
    F, > H[Implement control measures: biosecurity, vaccination, antimicrobial therapy]

Treatment and Control

Control of MG relies on a multipronged approach combining biosecurity, antimicrobial therapy, and vaccination.

Biosecurity

Strict biosecurity measures are the cornerstone of MG prevention. All‑in‑all‑out management, disinfection of facilities, and control of visitor and equipment movement reduce the risk of introduction [10, 12]. Because wild birds can carry MG, netting and exclusion strategies are recommended near poultry houses [11, 13]. Serological monitoring of replacement stock and purchase of MG‑free hatchery eggs are essential to prevent vertical introduction [8, 15].

Antimicrobial Therapy

Macrolide antibiotics, particularly tylosin and tilmicosin, are commonly used to treat MG infections. However, reduced susceptibility has been reported, as evidenced by MIC values for tylosin ranging from 2 to 16 µg/mL in a recent study [2]. Doxycycline, enrofloxacin, and tiamulin are alternative options, although resistance patterns vary geographically [16]. Antimicrobial treatment reduces clinical signs and shedding but rarely eliminates the organism from a flock [2]. In ovo or day‑old antibiotic therapy may suppress vertical transmission but is not a substitute for eradication.

Vaccination

Vaccination is a valuable tool for reducing the economic impact of MG. Live attenuated vaccines, such as the ts‑11 strain (a temperature‑sensitive mutant), have been used to protect layer and breeder flocks. A floor pen study evaluating the serological response of broiler breeders after vaccination with ts‑11 showed that the vaccine induced a detectable antibody response and reduced respiratory lesions following challenge [20].

Non‑pathogenic MG strains have been investigated for their ability to displace pathogenic strains through competitive exclusion. In a controlled study, chickens vaccinated with a non‑pathogenic MG strain were resistant to colonisation by a virulent field strain, suggesting that vaccine‑based displacement can be an effective strategy [21]. However, vaccine efficacy can be compromised by concurrent infections or immunosuppression [20].

Control programs in some countries have relied on a combination of serological testing and culling of positive flocks (test‑and‑slaughter) to achieve eradication. This approach has been successful in parts of Asia and Europe but is economically challenging for large commercial operations [5, 16].

Integrated Control Strategies

An integrated control program should include: (1) sourcing MG‑free stock, (2) maintaining high biosecurity, (3) routine serological surveillance, (4) strategic vaccination of high‑risk flocks, and (5) judicious use of antimicrobials guided by susceptibility testing. For a detailed discussion of vaccination protocols and disease management, see related articles on this portal: Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae Infections in Chickens: Laboratory Diagnosis and Control Strategies, Avian Mycoplasmosis: Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Other Species, Vaccination and Control in Poultry, and Mycoplasma gallisepticum Infection in Chickens: Diagnosis and Management.

Conclusion

Mycoplasma gallisepticum remains a major pathogen in the global poultry industry. Transmission is sustained by both horizontal and vertical routes, with wild birds and fomites playing significant roles in disseminating infection. Effective control requires rigorous biosecurity, sensitive molecular diagnostics, and targeted vaccination. Antimicrobial resistance, particularly to tylosin, is a growing concern and underscores the need for routine susceptibility testing. Continued surveillance using molecular typing methods such as MLST will be essential for tracking the emergence and spread of pathogenic strains.

References

[1] Hargis J, Vicuña E, Kuttappan V, et al. Mycoplasma gallisepticum isolates from chicken‑flocks in Jordan and their relation to live vaccines. Journal. 2014. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/050bfe42f75d8ae2d15a3e24779363620e27dc7d

[2] Kachabi K, Pourbakhsh SA, Zahraei Salehi T. Detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum, isolation, and determination of tylosin susceptibility of isolates from commercial chickens. Archives of Razi Institute. 2023. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d62afe6008a5b79de4978fb9ee40d1c74a8de38c

[3] Qasem J, Al‑Mouqati SA, AlAli E, et al. Application of molecular and serological methods for rapid detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection (Avian mycoplasmosis). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2015. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78d94c8459a128776ba8f667698777855fe0b3cb

[4] Hussain A, Yousaf A, Mushtaq A, et al. Prevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Ross‑308 broiler breeder through the contrast of serological assessments in Pakistan. Journal. 2018. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4f1894b63cc225cc7d35cdb476e808df6d8491f9

[5] Ando K. Diagnosis and prevention of CRD (Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection of chicken) in Japan. Journal. 1968. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3045e07f6375a1ab163c47aa05a857748c20533c

[6] Bekő K, Kreizinger Z, Sulyok KM, et al. Genotyping Mycoplasma gallisepticum by multilocus sequence typing. Veterinary Microbiology. 2019. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30955809/

[7] Truscott R, Ferguson AE, Ruhnke H, et al. An infection in chickens with a strain of Mycoplasma gallisepticum of low virulence. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine. 1974. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e2790224b6004b6867000054cac37ca6f9a85d17

[8] Bakre A, Anifowose O, Adegbenro M. Seroprevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in apparently healthy layer chickens in commercial farms in Ibadan. Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2022. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d5fac7fe3943fca672544ecbf58f958a548f17dc

[9] Jarquin R, Schultz J, Hanning I, et al. Development of a real‑time polymerase chain reaction assay for the simultaneous detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae under industry conditions. Avian Diseases. 2009. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eb14c7310a24c8e32be9e5389f258fab9f5afac3

[10] Tan CG, Jaganathan M, Ideris A, et al. Prevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in commercial chickens and free flying birds. Journal. 2016. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d517f2e4d17ef16609992e71a1d6f001555c0d66

[11] Gharaibeh S, Hailat A. Mycoplasma gallisepticum experimental infection and tissue distribution in chickens, sparrows and pigeons. Avian Pathology. 2011. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/88998ce2580b0aa84a4291219520b83bb6064167

[12] Michiels T, Welby S, Haesendonck R, et al. Prevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in commercial poultry, hobby poultry and wild birds in Belgium. Journal. 2014. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ed305abeb1b8be55387f3ddf6c7ceb495a003a30

[13] Michiels T, Lambrecht B, Martel A, et al. Seroprevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in wild birds in Belgium. Journal. 2013. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4d591817d9772fa78af73b62d5b0f45c07e03298

[14] Jaganathan M. Prevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in domestic chickens and free flying birds and molecular characterisation of the isolates. Journal. 2006. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d1b61425bf9ae8c7bf0853633296c98aea149416

[15] Gibbs P, Kleven S, Jackwood M. Analysis and characterization of Mycoplasma gallisepticum isolates from Pennsylvania. Avian Diseases. 1994. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a68be73528d9b54d7ba81b1840d5baf41bf53961

[16] Sato S. Avian mycoplasmosis in Asia. Revue Scientifique et Technique. 1996. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dbb6aac8b55a7c5c162c71bdbfe671a4e8b478c6

[17] Chaidez‑Ibarra MA, Velazquez DZ, Enriquez‑Verdugo I, et al. Pooled molecular occurrence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in poultry: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2022. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34427387/

[18] Sabri S, Khannous L, Ferré S, et al. First molecular investigation to detect avian Mycoplasma species in clinical samples from laying‑hen farms in Tunisia. BMC Veterinary Research. 2024. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39390571/

[19] Michiels T, Martel A, Vanrobaeys M, et al. Prevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in commercial poultry flocks in Belgium. Journal. 2013. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa49c4dd7aab58780ce48970a4c31ad4058b22

[20] Collett SR, Thomson DK, York D, et al. Floor pen study to evaluate the serological response of broiler breeders after vaccination with ts‑11 strain Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccine. Avian Diseases. 2005. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15839426/

[21] Levisohn S, Kleven SH. Vaccination of chickens with nonpathogenic Mycoplasma gallisepticum as a means for displacement of pathogenic strains. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences. 1981. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7287410/ *** 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.