Mycoplasma Gallisepticum and Mycoplasma Synoviae in Poultry: Vaccination Strategies and Disease Management
Introduction
Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) and Mycoplasma synoviae (MS) are two of the most economically significant avian mycoplasma pathogens affecting poultry worldwide [1, 2]. These cell wall deficient bacteria belong to the class Mollicutes and are characterized by their small genome size, limited metabolic capacity, and obligate parasitic lifestyle [1]. MG is the primary etiological agent of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) in chickens and infectious sinusitis in turkeys, while MS causes infectious synovitis, respiratory disease, and eggshell apex abnormalities (EAA) in layers and breeders [3, 4, 5]. Both pathogens are transmitted both vertically (through the egg) and horizontally (via respiratory aerosols, fomites, and contaminated feed/water), making eradication challenging in multi-age and commercial poultry operations [6, 1]. Vaccination forms a cornerstone of modern control programs, and the term poultry mycoplasma vaccine encompasses a range of live attenuated, recombinant vector, and subunit products designed to reduce clinical disease, egg transmission, and economic losses [7, 8, 9, 10]. This article provides an exhaustive, publication-grade review of the biology, pathogenesis, diagnostic tools, and integrated management strategies for MG and MS, with particular focus on vaccination approaches and the evidence base supporting their field application.
Etiology and Biology
Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae are classified within the class Mollicutes, order Mycoplasmatales [1]. They lack a peptidoglycan cell wall, rendering them intrinsically resistant to beta-lactam antimicrobials but susceptible to cell membrane active agents [11, 12]. The MG genome is approximately 1.0 Mb, among the smallest of any self-replicating organism, and encodes a limited repertoire of metabolic enzymes, necessitating reliance on host-derived nutrients such as cholesterol and amino acids [1, 13]. The MS genome is of similar size but exhibits distinct antigenic profiles and host tropism [9, 14]. Both species possess variable surface lipoproteins (e.g., the VlhA family in MG and the VlhA-like proteins in MS) that undergo high-frequency phase and size variation, enabling immune evasion and persistence within the host [1, 15]. These antigenic variation mechanisms complicate serological diagnostics and vaccine development, as strain-specific immune responses may not confer broad cross-protection [7, 16]. The organisms are highly fastidious, requiring specialized growth media enriched with serum and sterols for in vitro culture [17]. Their metabolic plasticity under varying nutrient conditions has been demonstrated using real-time monitoring approaches such as direct analysis in real time high-resolution mass spectrometry (DART-HRMS), revealing dynamic shifts in substrate utilization [13].
Epidemiology and Transmission
Mycoplasma gallisepticum and MS have a global distribution, with prevalence varying by region, production system, and biosecurity level [14, 4]. In Colombia, for instance, serological evidence of MG and MS exposure has been documented in trafficked psittacines, highlighting the potential role of wild and captive birds as reservoirs [4]. In commercial poultry, the primary route of introduction is through vertical transmission from infected breeder flocks to progeny, followed by lateral spread within and between flocks [6, 5]. The sampling location and frequency within the respiratory tract significantly affect detection sensitivity; a study by Sasidharan et al. demonstrated that choanal cleft swabs and tracheal swabs collected at multiple time points yielded the highest detection rates for MG in commercial layer pullets [6]. Multifactorial disease complexes are common, with co-infections involving MG, MS, avian influenza virus, infectious bronchitis virus, and Escherichia coli exacerbating clinical severity [3, 18]. A cross-sectional study in free-range layers identified complex pathogen interactions in upper respiratory tract infections, with MG and MS frequently co-circulating with other bacterial and viral agents [3]. Risk factors for MG and MS introduction include poor biosecurity, multi-age stocking, live bird markets, and contaminated equipment [4, 14]. The emergence of antimicrobial resistant strains, particularly to macrolides and fluoroquinolones, has been documented in various regions, complicating treatment options [11, 12, 19, 14]. Epidemiological cutoff values for novel pleuromutilin derivatives have been established to guide susceptibility testing [12].
Pathogenesis and Clinical Signs
Mycoplasma gallisepticum primarily colonizes the mucosal epithelium of the trachea, air sacs, and conjunctiva, adhering via specialized attachment organelles [1]. The organism induces ciliostasis, epithelial cell degeneration, and a robust mononuclear inflammatory response, leading to mucus accumulation, tracheal rales, coughing, and nasal discharge in chickens [20, 10]. In turkeys, MG causes infectious sinusitis with infraorbital swelling and caseous exudate [1]. Chronic infection results in airsacculitis, reduced feed conversion, and decreased egg production [7, 5]. Prior MG infection induces long-lasting partial immunity that reduces transmission within flocks, but does not eliminate the pathogen [5]. Mycoplasma synoviae typically targets the synovial membranes of joints and tendon sheaths, causing lameness, swollen hocks, and sternal bursitis (infectious synovitis) [9]. In respiratory form, MS can cause airsacculitis and tracheitis, often in conjunction with other respiratory pathogens [3]. Additionally, MS is a recognized cause of eggshell apex abnormalities in layer flocks, leading to reduced egg quality and economic losses [9]. The molecular pathogenesis involves activation of host signaling pathways, including the MAPK pathway and Hippo signaling, and the epigenetic silencing of host genes via Enhancer of Zeste homolog 2 mediated histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation [21, 15]. Luteolin, a flavonoid, has been shown to target TatD nuclease and inhibit MAPK pathway activation, reducing MG induced pathology in vitro [21]. Scutellaria baicalensis extracellular vesicles attenuate MG induced inflammation by inhibiting the TRPC1-STIM1/ORAI1 calcium channel and restoring calcium homeostasis, representing a novel therapeutic avenue [22, 23].
Diagnostic Approaches
Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential for effective control. Traditional methods include bacterial isolation and identification using specialized media, but these are time consuming and have low sensitivity, particularly in chronically infected or vaccinated flocks [17]. Serological assays such as the serum plate agglutination (SPA) test, hemagglutination inhibition (HI), and enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) are widely used for flock level surveillance [4, 2]. However, serology cannot distinguish between vaccine induced antibodies and field strain infection. Molecular diagnostics have become the gold standard for species specific detection and differentiation. A range of PCR based assays have been developed, including conventional, multiplex, and real time quantitative PCR (qPCR), as well as duplex qPCR assays capable of distinguishing vaccine strains from wild type MG [16, 24]. Notably, a multiplex TaqMan real time PCR assay allows differential identification of wild type and vaccine strains of MG simultaneously [24]. For MS, similar assays exist, and a combined approach for both species is feasible [9]. Isothermal amplification techniques such as loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and recombinase aided amplification (RAA) have been adapted for field deployment. A colorimetric LAMP assay using rapid DNA extraction has been validated for MG detection [25], and a high throughput colorimetric LAMP platform combined with intelligent algorithm assisted analysis has been reported [26]. The RAA CRISPR/Cas12a platform offers rapid, field deployable detection of MG without the need for thermocyclers [27]. A gold nanoparticle lateral flow immunoassay capable of detecting three avian mycoplasmas (MG, MS, and M. meleagridis) simultaneously on a single strip has been developed [28]. For quantification, droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) provides absolute quantitation of MG in clinical samples, particularly useful for monitoring vaccine shedding and reversion to virulence [35]. Standardization of diagnostics and antimicrobial susceptibility testing for animal mycoplasmas has been advanced through collaborative networks such as MyMIC [2].
Vaccination Strategies
The poultry mycoplasma vaccine landscape includes live attenuated, recombinant vectored, and subunit vaccines, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The primary goal of vaccination is to reduce clinical signs, decrease vertical transmission, and improve production performance [1, 2, 10].
Live Attenuated Vaccines
Live vaccines against MG, such as the F strain, ts-11, 6/85, and Vaxsafe MG304, have been widely used. These vaccines are administered via eye drop, spray, or drinking water to pullets before the onset of lay. Day old vaccination with Vaxsafe MG304 has been shown to protect chickens from tracheal transcriptional changes induced by chronic MG infection [10]. Live vaccines provide partial immunity and reduce but do not eliminate field strain colonization [5]. A challenge with live vaccines is the potential for reversion to virulence, the inability to serologically differentiate vaccinated from infected birds (DIVA), and strain specific protection [16, 8]. Nevertheless, they remain a practical tool for endemic regions with high biosecurity constraints.
Recombinant Vector Vaccines
Recombinant fowl pox virus (rFPV) vectored vaccines expressing MG antigens have been developed and evaluated in comparison to conventional live F strain vaccines. A study by Hashish et al. compared vaccination programs in layer pullets using a rFPV MG vaccine versus commercial F strain live vaccines and found that rFPV vaccination provided comparable protection with improved safety and DIVA capability [8]. Another promising approach uses recombinant Salmonella as a live vector to deliver MS and MG antigens, offering the potential for bivalent protection and ease of oral administration [9].
Subunit Vaccines
Recombinant subunit vaccines targeting immunodominant MG surface proteins (such as VlhA, GapA, and CrmA) have demonstrated cross protection against multiple pathogenic MG strains in experimental trials [7]. These vaccines are safer than live vaccines but often require adjuvants and multiple doses to induce adequate protective immunity [7]. A recombinant subunit vaccine that confers cross protection against heterologous MG strains has been described, which represents an important step toward universal MG immunization [7].
Other Vaccine Approaches
The use of plant derived exosome like nanoparticles (from Scutellaria baicalensis) as immunomodulatory agents represents an innovative but still experimental approach to augment vaccine responses or directly combat MG infection [22, 23]. Additionally, probiotic Lactobacillus strains of chicken origin have been shown to alleviate MG infection and improve growth performance in broilers, potentially serving as an adjunct to vaccination [29].
Immune Response and Efficacy Evaluation
Assessment of vaccine immunogenicity in poultry traditionally relies on serology and challenge studies. However, a study by Kulappu Arachchige et al. demonstrated that assessment of tracheal mucosal thickness using histomorphometry is a preferable method for evaluating MG vaccine immunogenicity compared to serological assays alone [20]. Prior infection induced partial immunity reduces transmission, suggesting that even imperfect vaccines can contribute to flock level control [5].
Disease Management and Treatment
Antimicrobial Therapy
Antimicrobial treatment remains a key component of MG and MS management, particularly in broiler flocks and during outbreaks. Commonly used classes include macrolides (tylosin, tilmicosin), tetracyclines (chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline), and pleuromutilins (tiamulin, valnemulin) [11, 12, 30]. However, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing concern. Macrolide resistant MG has been reported, and alternative agents such as the novel pleuromutilin derivative PFAM have been evaluated in China, with epidemiological cutoff values established [12]. Another novel pleuromutilin derivative, APTM, has been characterized for its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship against MG, providing data for dose optimization [30]. The risk of AMR is exacerbated by the practice of administering antibiotics to laying hens, which can lead to residues in eggs and selection for resistant strains [11]. A systematic review on antibiotics in lay and AMR highlighted the need for prudent use and alternatives [11]. Spirulina platensis has been identified as a novel natural antimicrobial with activity against macrolide resistant MG, offering a potential non antibiotic treatment option [19]. Cyclometalated palladium complexes have also shown promising antimycoplasmal activity in preclinical studies [31]. Compound plant essential oil disinfectants exhibit remarkable inhibition efficacy against MG and other pathogens, supporting their use in biosecurity protocols [34].
Alternative and Adjunctive Therapies
Chinese herbal medicines and formulations have been evaluated for efficacy in preventing and treating MG infection in chickens. Yan et al. demonstrated that certain herbal formulations reduced clinical signs and pathogen loads, although efficacy varied [32]. Additionally, exosome like nanoparticles from Scutellaria baicalensis have shown anti inflammatory and antimicrobial effects against MG by modulating calcium homeostasis [22, 23]. Luteolin, a natural flavonoid, targets bacterial TatD nuclease and the host MAPK pathway, providing a dual mechanism against MG [21]. These alternative therapies may reduce reliance on conventional antimicrobials and mitigate AMR development.
Biosecurity and Management
Strict biosecurity measures are essential to prevent introduction and spread of MG and MS. These include all in all out flock management, cleaning and disinfection of facilities, control of human and equipment movement, and monitoring of replacement stock [1, 2]. Hatchery derived mycoplasmosis (particularly vertical transmission) can be controlled through selection of MG/MS free breeder flocks, antimicrobial egg dipping (where permitted), and vaccination of parent stock [6, 1].
Integrated Control Programs
An integrated control program should combine biosecurity, vaccination, diagnostics, and antimicrobial stewardship. The decision to vaccinate depends on regional prevalence, production type, and regulatory constraints. A decision tree for vaccination and disease management is presented below.
Mermaid Diagram: Decision Tree for MG/MS Control
flowchart TD
A[Poultry Flock], > B{Source of flock}
B, >|Mycoplasma-free| C[Maintain high biosecurity]
B, >|Mycoplasma-positive or endemic area| D{Production type}
D, >|Layers/Breeders| E[Vaccinate pullets with live or vector vaccine]
D, >|Broilers| F[Antimicrobial therapy and biosecurity; consider vaccination only if high risk]
E, > G[Monitor serology and molecular markers for breakthrough]
F, > H[Apply AMR surveillance and rotation of antimicrobial classes]
G, > I{Breakthrough or clinical signs?}
I, >|Yes| J[Confirm diagnosis by PCR/ddPCR, adjust vaccination protocol or treat]
I, >|No| K[Continue monitoring]
H, > L{Outbreak occurs?}
L, >|Yes| M[Therapeutic antimicrobials, depopulation if necessary]
L, >|No| K
J, > N[Implement enhanced biosecurity and consider booster vaccination]
M, > O[Re-evaluate vaccination strategy and source replacements]
N, > P[Periodic diagnostics: qPCR, serology, culture]
O, > C
P, > K
This diagram illustrates a risk based approach. For Mycoplasma free flocks, biosecurity is paramount. In endemic areas, vaccination of replacement stock is recommended for long lived birds. Broilers may rely on antimicrobial prophylaxis or metaphylaxis, but rising AMR pressures demand judicious use [11, 12, 19]. Monitoring using molecular tools (e.g., duplex qPCR for vaccine/wild type differentiation [16, 24]) and serology guides intervention decisions.
Vaccination Protocols
The timing and route of vaccine administration significantly affect efficacy. Day old vaccination with live attenuated MG vaccine has been shown to protect against chronic transcriptional changes [10]. For the rFPV vectored vaccine, administration at day old or at 8 weeks of age has been evaluated [8]. When using live vaccines, it is critical to avoid antimicrobial therapy during the vaccine take period to prevent interference. The recombinant Salmonella vectored bivalent MG/MS vaccine offers oral delivery, which is advantageous for large scale administration [9].
Future Directions
Advances in molecular diagnostics, including the development of rapid field deployable tests (LAMP, RAA CRISPR, lateral flow) [28, 33, 26, 25, 27] and strain differentiating assays [16, 24], will enhance surveillance and vaccine monitoring. The application of ddPCR for absolute quantification of vaccine strains [35] and metabolic profiling via DART-HRMS [13] are promising research tools. Vaccine development continues to move toward more broadly protective and DIVA compatible products. The subunit vaccine conferring cross protection against multiple MG strains [7] and the recombinant bivalent MG/MS vector vaccine [9] are significant steps. Understanding the mechanisms of host pathogen interaction at the molecular level, including the role of histone modifications [15] and calcium signaling [22, 23], may identify new vaccine targets.
References
[1] Chen J, Liu P, Chen Y. Pathogenic mechanisms and vaccine development for Mycoplasma gallisepticum in chickens. Front Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41602759/
[2] Jaÿ M, Klose SM, Bottinelli M et al. Advancing standardization of diagnostics and antimicrobial susceptibility testing for pathogenic mycoplasmas of livestock origin: insights from the MyMIC network. BMC Vet Res. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41462247/
[3] Rodrigo CH, Kulappu Arachchige SN, Bushell RN et al. Complex pathogen interactions in upper respiratory tract infections in commercial free-range layers: A cross-sectional study. Vet Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42190304/
[4] Marín-Villa J, Alzate-Vargas JF, Ramírez TG et al. Serological evidence and risk factors of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae exposure in trafficked parrots and macaws in Colombia. Open Vet J. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41630737/
[5] Sudnick MC, Sauer EL, DuRant SE. Prior Infection Induces Long-Lasting Partial Immunity to Reduce Transmission within Flocks in an Avian Host-Pathogen System. Ecol Evol Physiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41529280/
[6] Sasidharan SK, Elliott KEC, Evans JD et al. Effects of sampling location and frequency on the detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum populations in the respiratory tract of commercial layer pullets. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42308738/
[7] Miller JM, Ozyck RG, Mara AB et al. Recombinant subunit vaccine against Mycoplasma gallisepticum disease confers cross-protection against multiple pathogenic strains. Infect Immun. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42283569/
[8] Hashish A, Chaves M, Osemeke O et al. Evaluation of Vaccination Programs in Layer Pullets Using Recombinant Fowl-Pox Mycoplasma gallisepticum Vaccine in Comparison to Commercially Available F-Strain Live Vaccines. Avian Dis. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41973009/
[9] Sabir R, Liu M, Saeed HA et al. Next-generation live vector vaccine targeting Mycoplasma synoviae and Mycoplasma gallisepticum via recombinant Salmonella. Vaccine. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41518971/
[10] Kamathewatta KI, Kanci Condello A, Ekanayake D et al. Day-old vaccination with the Vaxsafe MG304 live-attenuated vaccine protects chickens from tracheal transcriptional changes induced by chronic infection with Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Vaccine. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41202614/
[11] Morrow CJ, Achari RA, Charles M et al. Mycoplasma, antibiotics in lay, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42139894/
[12] Zhang F, Chen B, Zhou X et al. Epidemiological cutoff values of the novel pleuromutilin derivative PFAM and conventional antimicrobials against Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Guangdong, China. BMC Vet Res. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42035078/
[13] Bottinelli M, Zacometti C, Massaro A et al. Real-time monitoring of metabolic plasticity in Mycoplasma gallisepticum under varying nutrient conditions via DART-HRMS. Sci Rep. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42129501/
[14] Forero-Marin S, Gomez AP, Beltran-Leon M et al. A first look into the genomic characterization and fluoroquinolone resistance genotypes of Mycoplasma spp. in Colombian poultry. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41401692/
[15] Wang Y, Li S, Guo Q et al. Enhancer of Zeste homolog 2-mediated histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation sil
[16] Fan P, Liu Z, Xu Y et al. Strain-specific detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum: A duplex qPCR assay for vaccine efficacy and infection surveillance. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42139893/
[17] Taiyari H, Abu J, Zakaria Z et al. Different media affect the growth and antimicrobial minimum inhibitory concentrations of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae. J Microbiol Methods. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41319922/
[18] Hartady T, Sugandi SD, Viqih M. A Case of Avian Influenza Co-Infection and Multifactorial Diseases in a Broiler Chicken Farm in Majalengka, West Java, Indonesia. Vet Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42076736/
[19] Zidi S, Khadraoui N, Essid R et al. Spirulina platensis as a novel natural antimicrobial against macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma gallisepticum in poultry. Front Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41788330/
[20] Kulappu Arachchige SN, Abeykoon AMH, Stevenson MA et al. Assessment of tracheal mucosal thicknesses is a preferable method for evaluation of the immunogenicity of Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccines in poultry. Vaccine. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41365127/
[21] Liu W, Wang S, Hu J et al. Targeting TatD nuclease and the MAPK Pathway: Luteolin multifaceted approach against Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41548475/
[22] Yao Y, Hu R, Li Y et al. Scutellaria baicalensis exosome-like nanoparticles combat lung infection caused by Mycoplasma gallisepticum by regulating calcium homeostasis. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42083016/
[23] Xu F, Bao L, Yao Y et al. Mechanism of Scutellaria baicalensis extracellular vesicles in attenuating Mycoplasma gallisepticum-induced inflammation via TRPC1 - STIM1/ORAI1 channel inhibition. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41905072/
[24] Xin J, Zhang J, Liang S et al. A multiplex TaqMan real-time PCR assay for differential identification of wild-type and vaccine strains of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41702344/
[25] Mayne R, Pant SD, Huang J et al. A field-ready colourimetric LAMP assay for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum using rapid DNA extraction. Res Vet Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41785617/
[26] Jing W, Cai Q, Liang Y et al. High-throughput colorimetric LAMP detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum with intelligent algorithm-assisted analysis. Anal Methods. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41891257/
[27] Hu Q, Zhang R, Liu J et al. A rapid and field-deployable RAA-CRISPR/Cas12a platform for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in poultry. BMC Vet Res. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41526975/
[28] Zidi S, Yacoub E, Chniba I et al. Development and validation of a rapid triple-target gold nanoparticle lateral flow immunoassay for detection of three avian mycoplasmas immunochromatographic strip test for avian mycoplasma detection. BMC Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42288724/
[29] Guo Q, Che Z, Hu F et al. Chicken-derived Lactobacillus strains alleviate Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection and improve growth performance in broilers. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42314294/
[30] Yang W, Ding H, Ma X et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship of a novel pleuromutilin derivative APTM against Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41650639/
[31] Vishnyakov IE, Plekhanov AY, Goodkov AV et al. Cyclometalated palladium complexes as promising antimycoplasmatic drugs. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41711837/
[32] Yan Y, Liao L, Fan Y et al. Evaluation and Analysis of the Efficacy of Four Chinese Herbal Medicines and Formulations in Preventing and Treating Mycoplasma gallisepticum Infection in Chickens. Vet J. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42191062/
[33] Xuan H, Wang S, Ren X et al. Rapid visual detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum by combining recombinase-aided amplification with lateral-flow dipstick assay. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42127851/