What is Dr. Zubair Khalid's research focus?

Dr. Zubair Khalid specializes in molecular virology, mRNA vaccine development, and computational biology, with a focus on avian pathogens like IBDV and Avian Reovirus.

Where is Dr. Zubair Khalid currently working?

Dr. Zubair Khalid is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Maryland (UMD), specifically within the Department of Animal and Avian Sciences.

Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex (BRDC): Bacterial Pathogens, Metagenomic Diagnostics, and Antimicrobial Stewardship

Introduction

Bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC) represents the most economically significant infectious disease syndrome affecting feedlot cattle worldwide. The condition arises from a multifactorial interplay between host immune status, environmental stressors, viral priming agents, and bacterial pathogens. The bacterial component of BRDC is dominated by three primary agents: Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni. These organisms colonize the upper respiratory tract and, under conditions of immunosuppression or viral coinfection, translocate to the lower airways, triggering fibrinous bronchopneumonia. Traditional diagnostic approaches rely on culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing, but these methods are time-consuming and often fail to capture the full polymicrobial landscape. Metagenomic sequencing offers a paradigm shift by enabling simultaneous detection of bacterial pathogens, viral cofactors, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes directly from clinical specimens. This article provides an exhaustive review of the bacterial pathogens involved in BRDC, the principles and applications of metagenomic diagnostics, and the imperative of antimicrobial stewardship in the context of emerging resistance.

Bacterial Pathogens of BRDC

Mannheimia haemolytica

Mannheimia haemolytica (formerly Pasteurella haemolytica biotype A serotype 1) is the most frequently isolated bacterial pathogen from acute cases of bovine respiratory disease. The organism is a Gram-negative coccobacillus that colonizes the nasopharynx of healthy cattle. Stressors such as weaning, transport, and commingling, combined with viral infections (e.g., bovine respiratory syncytial virus, bovine herpesvirus-1, parainfluenza-3 virus), disrupt mucociliary clearance and epithelial integrity, allowing M. haemolytica to proliferate and aspirate into the lungs [1, 2].

The primary virulence factor is a leukotoxin (LktA), a member of the RTX (repeats-in-toxin) family. LktA specifically targets bovine leukocytes, including alveolar macrophages and neutrophils, by binding to the CD18 subunit of β2 integrins. This interaction triggers pore formation, osmotic lysis, and release of proinflammatory mediators such as interleukin-8 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha [3, 4]. The resulting inflammatory cascade leads to fibrin deposition, thrombosis, and the characteristic cranioventral fibrinous bronchopneumonia. Additional virulence determinants include a polysaccharide capsule that inhibits phagocytosis, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) that induces endotoxic shock, and several adhesins (e.g., filamentous hemagglutinin, autotransporter proteins) that facilitate epithelial attachment [5, 6].

Antimicrobial resistance in M. haemolytica has escalated globally. Resistance to tetracyclines, macrolides, and fluoroquinolones is mediated by acquired genes such as tet(H), erm(42), and qnrS, respectively [7, 8]. Integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs) play a major role in horizontal gene transfer among Pasteurellaceae [9].

Pasteurella multocida

Pasteurella multocida is a commensal of the upper respiratory tract in cattle and a secondary invader in BRDC. It is a Gram-negative coccobacillus that produces a hyaluronic acid capsule. Capsular serogroups A, B, D, and F are recognized, with serogroup A predominating in bovine respiratory isolates [10]. The capsule is antiphagocytic and promotes biofilm formation, which contributes to persistence in the respiratory tract [11].

P. multocida lacks a leukotoxin but produces a potent dermonecrotic toxin (PMT) in some strains. PMT is a constitutively active intracellular toxin that deamidates heterotrimeric G proteins, leading to sustained activation of Rho GTPases and downstream mitogenic signaling [12]. However, the role of PMT in bovine respiratory disease is less clear than in atrophic rhinitis of swine. The primary pathogenic mechanism in BRDC is likely the induction of a suppurative bronchopneumonia through LPS-mediated inflammation and neutrophil recruitment [13].

Resistance profiles in P. multocida are similar to those in M. haemolytica, with increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains. Resistance genes are often carried on small plasmids or ICEs. Notably, the blaROB-1 β-lactamase gene confers ampicillin resistance, and floR confers florfenicol resistance [14, 15].

Histophilus somni

Histophilus somni (formerly Haemophilus somnus) is a Gram-negative coccobacillus that causes a range of disease manifestations in cattle, including respiratory disease, thrombotic meningoencephalitis (TME), myocarditis, and reproductive disorders. In the context of BRDC, H. somni is a primary pathogen capable of causing fibrinous bronchopneumonia independent of viral coinfection [16].

The organism lacks a classical LPS and instead expresses a lipooligosaccharide (LOS) with phase-variable epitopes that mimic host glycosphingolipids. This molecular mimicry facilitates immune evasion and contributes to the development of immune-mediated vasculitis, a hallmark of TME [17]. H. somni also produces an immunoglobulin-binding protein (IbpA) that binds bovine IgG2 and inhibits Fc-mediated opsonophagocytosis [18]. Biofilm formation is another key feature, mediated by exopolysaccharide production and type IV pili [19].

Antimicrobial resistance in H. somni is less extensively documented than in M. haemolytica and P. multocida, but resistance to tetracyclines and macrolides has been reported. The organism is intrinsically susceptible to ceftiofur and enrofloxacin, although reduced susceptibility has been observed in some isolates [20].

Other Bacterial Contributors

While the three pathogens above are the primary bacterial agents, other organisms can contribute to BRDC, including Mycoplasma bovis, Trueperella pyogenes, and Bibersteinia trehalosi. Mycoplasma bovis is particularly important as it lacks a cell wall, rendering β-lactam antibiotics ineffective, and it can cause chronic, treatment-resistant pneumonia [21]. Trueperella pyogenes is often isolated from pulmonary abscesses in chronic cases [22].

Metagenomic Diagnostics for BRDC

Limitations of Conventional Diagnostics

Traditional diagnosis of BRDC relies on culture of deep nasopharyngeal swabs or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, followed by disk diffusion or broth microdilution susceptibility testing. These methods require 48 to 72 hours for definitive results, a delay that often forces empirical antimicrobial selection. Moreover, culture-based approaches are biased toward fast-growing organisms and may miss fastidious pathogens such as H. somni or M. bovis. Mixed infections are common, and culture may fail to detect low-abundance but clinically relevant species [23, 24].

Principles of Metagenomic Sequencing

Metagenomic sequencing circumvents culture bias by extracting total nucleic acid directly from a clinical sample and sequencing all microbial genomes present. Two main approaches exist: shotgun metagenomics and targeted metagenomics (e.g., 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing). Shotgun metagenomics provides species-level resolution and allows detection of AMR genes, virulence factors, and viral genomes. 16S amplicon sequencing is cheaper but limited to bacterial community profiling and cannot reliably differentiate closely related species such as M. haemolytica and B. trehalosi [25, 26].

The workflow involves sample collection (nasopharyngeal swab, transtracheal wash, or lung tissue), DNA extraction, library preparation, high-throughput sequencing, and bioinformatic analysis. Quality control steps include removal of host DNA (which can constitute >90% of total DNA in respiratory samples) through differential lysis or computational subtraction [27]. Bioinformatic pipelines such as Kraken2, MetaPhlAn, and Centrifuge assign taxonomic labels to sequencing reads, while tools like ResFinder, CARD, and ABRicate identify AMR genes [28, 29].

Advantages for BRDC

Metagenomic diagnostics offer several advantages for BRDC management. First, they enable simultaneous detection of all bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens in a single assay. This is critical because viral coinfection (e.g., with bovine respiratory syncytial virus, bovine coronavirus, or bovine viral diarrhea virus) is a major predisposing factor for bacterial pneumonia [30]. Second, metagenomics can detect AMR genes even in unculturable or dead organisms, providing a comprehensive resistance profile. Third, the turnaround time for sequencing can be reduced to under 24 hours using rapid library preparation protocols and real-time sequencing platforms [31].

Several studies have applied metagenomics to BRDC. One investigation using shotgun sequencing on lung tissue from fatal BRDC cases identified M. haemolytica, P. multocida, and M. bovis as the dominant species, with co-occurrence of multiple AMR genes including tet(H), erm(42), and floR [32]. Another study compared nasopharyngeal swab metagenomics to culture and found that metagenomics detected H. somni in 30% of samples that were culture-negative for this organism [33].

Challenges and Considerations

Despite its promise, metagenomic diagnostics face several hurdles. The high cost of sequencing and bioinformatic analysis remains a barrier for routine use in veterinary practice. Standardization of protocols and reference databases is lacking, leading to variability in results between laboratories. The presence of host DNA reduces sensitivity for pathogen detection, although enrichment strategies (e.g., probe-based capture of microbial DNA) are being developed [34]. Furthermore, the clinical significance of detecting an organism at low abundance must be interpreted with caution, as the upper respiratory tract of healthy cattle harbors many of the same species [35].

Antimicrobial Stewardship in BRDC

The Problem of Antimicrobial Resistance

The widespread use of antimicrobials in feedlot cattle, particularly metaphylactic administration of macrolides (e.g., tulathromycin, gamithromycin) and tetracyclines (e.g., oxytetracycline) upon arrival, has driven the emergence of MDR bacterial populations. Surveillance studies indicate that resistance to at least one antimicrobial class exceeds 70% in M. haemolytica isolates from North American feedlots [36, 37]. Co-resistance to three or more classes is common, severely limiting therapeutic options.

Principles of Stewardship

Antimicrobial stewardship in BRDC aims to optimize clinical outcomes while minimizing resistance selection. Key principles include:

Targeted therapy: Use of rapid diagnostics (including metagenomics) to identify the causative pathogen and its resistance profile, enabling selection of a narrow-spectrum agent when possible.
Judicious metaphylaxis: Limiting mass medication to high-risk cattle (e.g., lightweight, stressed calves) and using the shortest effective duration.
Culture and susceptibility testing: Performing susceptibility testing on representative isolates from affected animals to guide herd-level treatment protocols.
Biosecurity and management: Reducing stress through proper ventilation, nutrition, and vaccination to decrease the need for antimicrobials [38, 39].

Role of Metagenomics in Stewardship

Metagenomic sequencing can directly inform stewardship by providing a comprehensive AMR gene profile within 24 hours. For example, detection of erm(42) indicates macrolide resistance, prompting avoidance of tulathromycin. Detection of blaROB-1 suggests ampicillin resistance, while floR indicates florfenicol resistance. This information allows clinicians to select an effective antimicrobial from the outset, reducing the likelihood of treatment failure and further resistance selection [40].

Alternative and Adjunctive Strategies

Non-antimicrobial interventions are critical to reducing reliance on drugs. Vaccination against M. haemolytica (leukotoxin toxoid and outer membrane protein vaccines) and H. somni (bacterins) can reduce disease severity, although efficacy is variable [41]. Probiotics and competitive exclusion products are under investigation. Immunomodulators such as recombinant bovine interleukin-2 have shown promise in enhancing host defenses [42].

Diagnostic Workflow and Decision Tree

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a proposed diagnostic and stewardship workflow for BRDC incorporating metagenomic sequencing.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical BRDC suspect], > B[Collect deep nasopharyngeal swab or BAL]
    B, > C{Metagenomic sequencing available?}
    C, >|Yes| D[DNA extraction, library prep, sequencing]
    D, > E[Bioinformatic analysis: pathogen ID + AMR genes]
    E, > F[Select targeted antimicrobial based on AMR profile]
    C, >|No| G[Conventional culture + AST]
    G, > H[Empirical therapy while awaiting results]
    H, > I[Adjust therapy based on AST results]
    F, > J[Monitor clinical response]
    I, > J
    J, > K[Reassess at 48-72 hours]
    K, > L[If no improvement, repeat diagnostics or consider alternative pathogens]

Conclusion

Bovine respiratory disease complex remains a formidable challenge to the cattle industry, driven by the interplay of Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni under conditions of stress and viral coinfection. The escalating prevalence of antimicrobial resistance necessitates a shift from empirical, broad-spectrum therapy to precision medicine. Metagenomic sequencing offers a powerful tool for rapid, comprehensive pathogen and resistance gene detection, enabling targeted antimicrobial selection and supporting stewardship efforts. While cost and standardization issues remain, ongoing advances in sequencing technology and bioinformatics are likely to make metagenomics a routine component of BRDC diagnostics in the near future. Integration of these molecular tools with sound management practices and vaccination programs will be essential to mitigate the impact of BRDC and preserve the efficacy of existing antimicrobials.

References

[1] Rice JA, Carrasco-Medina L, Hodgins DC, et al. Mannheimia haemolytica and bovine respiratory disease: a review. Vet Microbiol. 2007;125(1-2):1-16.

[2] Griffin D. Economic impact associated with respiratory disease in beef cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 1997;13(3):367-377.

[3] Highlander SK. Molecular genetic analysis of virulence in Mannheimia (Pasteurella) haemolytica. Front Biosci. 2001;6:D1128-D1150.

[4] Jeyaseelan S, Sreevatsan S, Maheswaran SK. Role of Mannheimia haemolytica leukotoxin in the pathogenesis of bovine pneumonic pasteurellosis. Anim Health Res Rev. 2002;3(2):69-82.

[5] Lo RYC. Genetic analysis of virulence factors of Mannheimia haemolytica A1. Vet Microbiol. 2001;83(3):193-207.

[6] Davies RL, Lee I. Sequence diversity and molecular evolution of the leukotoxin (lktA) gene in bovine and ovine strains of Mannheimia haemolytica. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(17):5761-5773.

[7] Klima CL, Zaheer R, Cook SR, et al. Pathogens of bovine respiratory disease in North American feedlots conferring multidrug resistance via integrative conjugative elements. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(2):438-448.

[8] Desmolaize B, Rose S, Warrass R, et al. A novel Erm monomethyltransferase in Mannheimia haemolytica confers macrolide resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(5):2238-2243.

[9] Michael GB, Kadlec K, Sweeney MT, et al. ICEPmu1, an integrative conjugative element (ICE) of Pasteurella multocida: structure and transfer. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(1):91-98.

[10] Harper M, Boyce JD, Adler B. Pasteurella multocida pathogenesis: 125 years after Pasteur. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006;265(1):1-10.

[11] Petruzzi B, Briggs RE, Swords WE, et al. Biofilm formation by Pasteurella multocida from bovine respiratory disease. Vet Microbiol. 2017;207:182-188.

[12] Orth JHC, Aktories K. Molecular biology of Pasteurella multocida toxin. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2012;361:73-92.

[13] Dabo SM, Taylor JD, Confer AW. Pasteurella multocida and bovine respiratory disease. Anim Health Res Rev. 2007;8(2):129-150.

[14] Kehrenberg C, Schwarz S. floR in Pasteurella multocida from bovine respiratory disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(6):2534-2535.

[15] San Millan A, Escudero JA, Gutierrez B, et al. Multiresistance in Pasteurella multocida is mediated by coexistence of small plasmids. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(8):3399-3404.

[16] Corbeil LB. Histophilus somni host-parasite relationships. Anim Health Res Rev. 2007;8(2):151-160.

[17] Inzana TJ, Balyan R, Howard MD. Characterization of a lipooligosaccharide from Histophilus somni that is sialylated. Infect Immun. 2002;70(3):1135-1142.

[18] Tagawa Y, Bastida-Corcuera F, Corbeil LB. Immunoglobulin binding protein of Histophilus somni binds bovine IgG2. Microb Pathog. 2005;38(5-6):227-235.

[19] Sandal I, Hong W, Swords WE, et al. Histophilus somni biofilm formation in vitro. Vet Microbiol. 2007;125(3-4):376-381.

[20] Portis E, Lindeman C, Johansen L, et al. A ten-year (2000-2009) study of antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria that cause bovine respiratory disease complex. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2012;24(3):535-544.

[21] Nicholas RAJ, Ayling RD. Mycoplasma bovis: disease, diagnosis, and control. Res Vet Sci. 2003;74(2):105-112.

[22] Billington SJ, Jost BH, Songer JG. The pathogenic potential of Trueperella pyogenes. Vet Microbiol. 2002;88(2):197-208.

[23] Timsit E, Workentine M, van der Meer F, et al. Distinct bacterial metacommunities inhabit the upper and lower respiratory tracts of healthy feedlot cattle. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2054.

[24] Holman DB, Timsit E, Amat S, et al. The nasopharyngeal microbiota of feedlot cattle that develop bovine respiratory disease. Vet Microbiol. 2015;180(1-2):90-95.

[25] Quince C, Walker AW, Simpson JT, et al. Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(9):833-844.

[26] Janda JM, Abbott SL. 16S rRNA gene sequencing for bacterial identification in the diagnostic laboratory. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(9):2761-2764.

[27] Marotz CA, Sanders JG, Zuniga C, et al. Improving saliva shotgun metagenomics by chemical host DNA depletion. Microbiome. 2018;6(1):42.

[28] Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol. 2019;20(1):257.

[29] Zankari E, Hasman H, Cosentino S, et al. Identification of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(11):2640-2644.

[30] Fulton RW, Cook BJ, Step DL, et al. Evaluation of health status of calves and the impact on feedlot performance. J Anim Sci. 2002;80(5):1240-1246.

[31] Greninger AL, Naccache SN, Federman S, et al. Rapid metagenomic identification of viral pathogens in clinical samples by real-time nanopore sequencing. Genome Med. 2015;7(1):99.

[32] Timsit E, Hallewell J, Booker CW, et al. A metagenomic approach to characterize the bacterial community and antimicrobial resistance genes in lung samples from feedlot cattle with fatal bronchopneumonia. Vet Microbiol. 2017;207:199-206.

[33] Amat S, Timsit E, Baines D, et al. Development of a high-throughput method for the detection of Histophilus somni in bovine nasopharyngeal swabs. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2018;30(4):562-567.

[34] Briese T, Kapoor A, Mishra N, et al. Virome capture sequencing enables sensitive viral diagnosis and comprehensive virome analysis. mBio. 2015;6(5):e01491-15.

[35] McMullen C, Orsel K, Alexander TW, et al. Comparison of the nasopharyngeal bacterial communities of beef calves with and without bovine respiratory disease. Vet Microbiol. 2018;219:1-8.

[36] DeDonder KD, Apley MD. A literature review of antimicrobial resistance in Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida from cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2015;31(1):1-17.

[37] Lubbers BV, Hanzlicek GA. Antimicrobial multidrug resistance and coresistance patterns of Mannheimia haemolytica from feedlot cattle. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2013;25(4):497-501.

[38] Apley MD. Antimicrobial stewardship in the feedlot. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2015;31(1):127-139.

[39] Smith DR, Grotelueschen DM, Knott T, et al. Antimicrobial stewardship in beef cattle. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2019;254(10):1160-1168.

[40] Zaheer R, Cook SR, Klima CL, et al. Metagenomic profiling of antimicrobial resistance genes in the bovine respiratory tract. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:586.

[41] Confer AW, Ayalew S. Mannheimia haemolytica in bovine respiratory disease: immunogens, immune responses, and vaccines. Anim Health Res Rev. 2013;14(1):1-18.

[42] Blecha F. Immunomodulation: a means of disease prevention in stressed livestock. J Anim Sci. 1988;66(8):2084-2090.

[43] Gagea MI, Bateman KG, van Dreumel T, et al. Diseases and pathogens associated with mortality in Ontario beef feedlots. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2006;18(1):18-28.

[44] Welsh RD, Dye LB, Payton ME, et al. Isolation and antimicrobial susceptibilities of bacterial pathogens from bovine pneumonia. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2004;16(5):426-431.

[45] Catry B, Dewulf J, Maes D, et al. Effect of antimicrobial consumption and production type on antimicrobial resistance in the bovine respiratory tract. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(4):853-860.

[46] Hendriksen RS, Mevius DJ, Schroeter A, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among bacterial pathogens isolated from cattle in different European countries. Vet Microbiol. 2008;129(1-2):115-124.

[47] Watts JL, Sweeney MT, Lubbers BV. Antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial pathogens from bovine respiratory disease. Vet Microbiol. 2018;225:1-7.

[48] Booker CW, Abutarbush SM, Morley PS, et al. Microbiological and histopathological findings in cases of fatal bovine respiratory disease. Can Vet J. 2008;49(1):59-65.

[49] Taylor JD, Fulton RW, Lehenbauer TW, et al. The epidemiology of bovine respiratory disease: what is the evidence for predisposing factors? Can Vet J. 2010;51(10):1095-1102.

[50] Snowder GD, Van Vleck LD, Cundiff LV, et al. Bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle: environmental, genetic, and economic factors. J Anim Sci. 2006;84(8):1999-2008.