Brachyspira hyodysenteriae (Swine Dysentery): Exhaustive Single-Species Reference

Introduction

Brachyspira hyodysenteriae is a Gram-negative, anaerobic, spirochete bacterium that is the primary etiological agent of swine dysentery (SD), a globally significant mucohemorrhagic colitis of growing pigs [1, 2]. The disease is characterized by severe inflammation of the large intestine, leading to bloody, mucoid diarrhea, reduced weight gain, and substantial economic losses in affected herds [3, 4]. B. hyodysenteriae colonizes the colonic and cecal crypts, where it disrupts epithelial integrity through a combination of motility, hemolysin production, and host immune subversion [5, 6]. This review integrates the latest peer-reviewed literature (2022–2026) on the pathogen's genomic architecture, metabolomic signatures, diagnostic advances, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, microbiome interactions, and eradication strategies.

Taxonomy and Phylogeny

B. hyodysenteriae belongs to the phylum Spirochaetes, family Brachyspiraceae. Historically classified as Treponema hyodysenteriae, it was reclassified into the genus Brachyspira based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis [7]. Whole-genome sequencing has revealed a core genome of approximately 3.1 Mb with a low G+C content (approximately 27 mol%) [8]. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) has identified numerous sequence types (STs) circulating globally, with ST245 being capable of colonizing asymptomatic pigs [9]. Genomic studies have demonstrated a highly plastic, recombinogenic population structure, with extensive exchange of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes and virulence determinants across geographical regions [10]. Rohde et al. (2025) published complete genome sequences of reference strains B204 and JR80, providing essential resources for comparative genomics and functional studies [8].

Epidemiology and Transmission

Swine dysentery is transmitted predominantly via the fecal–oral route. Excretion of B. hyodysenteriae in feces begins approximately 4–7 days post-infection and can persist for weeks, even in subclinically infected animals [11]. Environmental persistence is facilitated by the bacterium's ability to survive in slurry for at least 60 days. Common insect vectors, including houseflies (Musca domestica), have been shown to mechanically carry viable B. hyodysenteriae, contributing to within-herd and between-herd dissemination [12]. In a multi-country European prevalence study, Arnold et al. (2023) reported that 18–45% of pig herds with a history of diarrhea harbored Brachyspira spp., with B. hyodysenteriae the most frequently diagnosed species [13]. Risk factors include continuous flow production, contaminated transport vehicles, and lack of biosecurity measures. Sweden has achieved national-level control of SD through a combination of surveillance, depopulation-repopulation, and strict movement restrictions, demonstrating the feasibility of eradication at a national scale [14].

Pathogenesis and Virulence Mechanisms

The pathogenic cascade of B. hyodysenteriae begins with attachment to the colonic mucosa, mediated by specific adhesion factors that recognize porcine intestinal glycosphingolipids [15]. Once established in the crypt lumen, the spirochetes proliferate and produce β-hemolysin (hlyA) and other cytotoxins that damage colonic epithelial cells [16]. A hallmark of SD is the induction of a robust innate immune response. Transcriptomic profiling of colonic mucosa during acute infection reveals upregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1α, IL-6, TNF-α) and chemokines, coupled with downregulation of ion transporters such as DRA (SLC26A3) [17]. The decreased DRA expression, driven by a p38-dependent IL-1α response, impairs Cl⁻/HCO₃⁻ exchange, contributing directly to secretory diarrhea [17]. Concurrently, infection alters mucin dynamics: acute SD reduces expression of gel-forming mucins (MUC2, MUC5AC) and modifies glycosylation patterns in the colonic mucus layer, facilitating deeper tissue penetration [18].

Metabolomic analysis of colonic tissues from infected pigs reveals distinct shifts in amino acid, lipid, and energy metabolism, reflecting the host's metabolic reprogramming in response to infection [1]. Acute infection also correlates with changes in fecal MUC5AC levels, which may serve as a non-invasive biomarker for early-stage SD [11, 18].

Microbiome Interactions and Co-infections

The colonic microbiota plays a critical role in susceptibility and pathogenesis. Field studies have shown that pre-existing dysbiosis, specifically reduced abundance of Lactobacillus and Prevotella spp., predisposes pigs to colonization by B. hyodysenteriae [3]. Following infection, the microbiota undergoes further disruption: alpha diversity decreases, and the relative abundance of pathogenic Escherichia and Clostridium groups increases [7]. These microbiome shifts correlate with the severity of colitis, as assessed by histopathological scoring [7].

Co-infection with Lawsonia intracellularis, the agent of porcine proliferative enteropathy, is common in field settings and can exacerbate clinical disease. Experimental dual infections result in more severe lesions and compounded dysbiosis compared with single-agent challenges [19]. Conversely, vaccination against L. intracellularis does not appear to interfere with B. hyodysenteriae colonization or immune responses, though co-infected pigs may show altered fecal shedding patterns [6].

Clinical Signs and Pathology

The incubation period ranges from 7 to 21 days. Clinical signs begin with yellowish, soft feces that progress to watery, mucoid diarrhea containing flecks of fresh blood. In peracute cases, pigs may die without prodromal signs. Morbidity is high (up to 90%), but mortality is typically low (5–10%) unless complicated by other enteric pathogens or management stress [11]. Growth performance is severely compromised; digestibility of dietary fiber is reduced, and feed conversion ratio increases significantly [20].

Gross pathology is confined to the large intestine. The cecal and colonic walls are edematous, congested, and covered with a fibrino-mucoid exudate. The mucosa appears hyperemic, and the contents are mucohemorrhagic. Histologically, lesions include goblet cell hyperplasia, erosion of surface epithelium, crypt elongation, and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate (neutrophils, macrophages) [16]. Colonic innate immune defenses, such as antimicrobial peptide expression, are overwhelmed during acute disease, allowing spirochetes to invade deeper crypt regions [16].

Diagnostic Approaches

Clinical and Pathological Diagnosis

Presumptive diagnosis is based on compatible clinical signs and gross lesions. However, definitive diagnosis requires laboratory confirmation due to overlapping presentations with Salmonella spp., Lawsonia intracellularis, and Brachyspira pilosicoli.

Bacteriological Culture and Isolation

Anaerobic culture on selective media (e.g., trypticase soy agar with 5% sheep blood and spectinomycin, vancomycin, colistin) remains a reference method. B. hyodysenteriae produces a strong β-hemolysis zone (typically 5–10 mm) and is indole-positive, features that differentiate it from other porcine Brachyspira species [9]. Nonetheless, culture is slow (3–7 days) and lacks sensitivity for subclinical carriers.

Nucleic Acid Detection

Real-time PCR (qPCR) assays targeting the nox gene or 16S rRNA gene are now standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity. Multiplex qPCR formats enable simultaneous detection of B. hyodysenteriae with other important swine pathogens.

• Wu et al. (2025) developed a triplex real-time PCR for B. hyodysenteriae, L. intracellularis, and Clostridium perfringens [21].
• Wang et al. (2024) validated a quadruplex TaqMan qPCR for four porcine digestive pathogens, including B. hyodysenteriae [22].
• Ren et al. (2024) reported a multiplex TaqMan qPCR that simultaneously detects porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, B. hyodysenteriae, and L. intracellularis [23].

Oral fluid samples have emerged as a practical, non-invasive matrix for herd-level surveillance. Eddicks et al. (2025) demonstrated that multiplex qPCR on oral fluids provides adequate sensitivity for monitoring B. hyodysenteriae under field conditions, although fecal samples remain more sensitive for individual diagnosis [24].

Long-read whole-genome sequencing (WGS) provides a rapid, culture-independent method for predicting AMR profiles directly from clinical samples, with accuracy exceeding 95% for known resistance determinants [25].

flowchart TD
    A[Compatible clinical signs: bloody mucoid diarrhea], > B{Diagnostic sample type}
    B, > C[Fecal swab / fresh feces]
    B, > D[Oral fluid (herd-level)]
    B, > E[Colonic tissue (necropsy)]
    C, > F[Anaerobic culture on selective agar]
    C, > G[Multiplex qPCR (nox gene)]
    D, > G
    E, > H[Histopathology + IHC]
    F, > I[Positive: β-hemolysis, indole+]
    G, > J[Positive: Ct < 35]
    H, > K[Confirms SD lesions]
    I & J & K, > L[Definitive diagnosis]
    J, > M[Negative or inconclusive]
    M, > N[Long-read WGS for AMR prediction]
    N, > L

Figure 1. Diagnostic decision tree for swine dysentery. qPCR is the preferred initial test for both individual and herd-level diagnosis. Positive samples may be cultured for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) or sequenced for genomic epidemiology.

Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Resistance

Therapeutic control historically relied on tiamulin, valnemulin, and carbadox. However, global surveillance reveals increasing minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for pleuromutilins and macrolides [26]. Hakimi et al. (2024) reported that approximately 15% of U.S. B. hyodysenteriae isolates were resistant to tiamulin, and resistance to lincomycin exceeded 30% [26]. In northern Italy, De Lorenzi et al. (2024) found that 12% of isolates collected between 2005 and 2022 were multidrug-resistant (MDR) to three or more antimicrobial classes [27].

Gentamicin has shown good in vitro activity against Spanish field isolates, with MIC₉₀ values below 2 µg/mL, but its in vivo efficacy remains under investigation [28]. Medium-chain fatty acids, such as caprylic and capric acid, exhibit a dual antimicrobial effect, disrupting bacterial membranes and potentiating the action of pleuromutilins against MDR strains [35]. A curcumin-derived metalloprotease inhibitor (CMC2.24) has been shown to reduce Brachyspira spp.-induced colitis severity by inhibiting the bacterial protease that degrades host mucin [29].

The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare has categorized AMR B. hyodysenteriae as a moderate-risk priority for surveillance under EU Animal Health Law, emphasizing the need for prudent antimicrobial use and alternative control strategies [30].

Control, Eradication, and Alternative Strategies

Eradication Approaches

Swine dysentery can be eradicated from infected herds using either a partial depopulation approach (remove affected groups, clean, disinfect, restock) or a management-based protocol combined with antimicrobials. Vangroenweghe (2025) successfully eradicated B. hyodysenteriae from an endemically infected herd using a protocol that combined a zinc chelate product with strict biosecurity measures, all-in/all-out management, and rodent control [4]. Farmer motivation and satisfaction are critical for sustained eradication; Vidondo et al. (2022) identified financial incentives and technical support as key drivers for owners choosing to undertake eradication programs [31].

Competitive Exclusion and Probiotics

Given the rise of AMR, non-antibiotic strategies are urgently needed. In vitro screening has identified commensal Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains that inhibit B. hyodysenteriae growth through production of organic acids and bacteriocins [5]. Gómez-Martínez et al. (2026) demonstrated that a competitive exclusion candidate (a Limosilactobacillus reuteri strain) significantly reduced B. hyodysenteriae adhesion to porcine intestinal epithelial cells [5]. Other non-antibiotic components, such as medium-chain fatty acids and plant extracts, have shown moderate efficacy in reducing intestinal lesions caused by B. hyodysenteriae in co-culture intestinal models [32].

Experimental Models

Reproducing swine dysentery in experimental settings is challenging. Parra-Aguirre et al. (2023) evaluated different inoculation strategies and found that oral gavage with feed withdrawal (24 h) and repeated inoculations (3 consecutive days) produced the most consistent disease [33]. A seeder-pig model (direct contact with infected pigs) better mimics natural transmission and is recommended for vaccine challenge studies [34]. Asymptomatic carriers (e.g., ST245 isolates) can be used to study subclinical shedding and within-herd transmission dynamics [9].

Bioinformatics and Systems Biology

Whole-genome sequencing combined with long-read technology has enabled high-resolution population genomics. Vereecke et al. (2023) established that long-read WGS predicts MDR profiles with >95% sensitivity for known AMR determinants, offering a same-day diagnostic alternative to culture [25]. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified lineage-specific genes associated with virulence and host adaptation [10]. Metabolomic and transcriptomic datasets (e.g., from acute infection models) are now being integrated into systems-level models of host–pathogen interaction, revealing key metabolic bottlenecks that could be targeted by novel therapeutics [1, 2].

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary route of transmission for Brachyspira hyodysenteriae?

The primary route is fecal–oral transmission, facilitated by contaminated pens, feed, water, and mechanical vectors such as flies [12].

How is swine dysentery definitively diagnosed?

Definitive diagnosis requires laboratory detection of B. hyodysenteriae by culture or qPCR from fecal samples or colonic tissue, supported by compatible histopathological findings [21, 11].

Can oral fluid samples replace fecal samples for monitoring?

Oral fluid samples are suitable for herd-level monitoring by multiplex qPCR but have lower sensitivity than fecal samples for detecting individual carriers [24].

What is the role of the gut microbiota in disease susceptibility?

Pre-existing reductions in beneficial Lactobacillus and Prevotella populations predispose pigs to B. hyodysenteriae colonization, and acute infection further disrupts microbial diversity [3, 7].

Are there effective alternatives to antibiotics for control?

Yes, competitive exclusion probiotics, medium-chain fatty acids, and protease inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in vitro or in experimental models [5, 29, 35].

Can swine dysentery be eradicated from a herd?

Yes, eradication is achievable through combined strategies involving antimicrobials (e.g., zinc chelate), enhanced biosecurity, and all-in/all-out management, as demonstrated by successful field trials [4] and national programs such as Sweden's [14].

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.

References

[1] Pérez-Pérez L, Galisteo C, Castillo-Peinado LLS, et al. Metabolomic signatures of colonic infection by Brachyspira hyodysenteriae. Vet Res. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42157352/

[2] Pérez-Pérez L, de Toro M, Zaldívar-López S, et al. In vivo transcriptomic profiling of colonic mucosa during Brachyspira hyodysenteriae infection in pigs. Vet J. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41724371/

[3] Pérez-Pérez L, Arguello H, Cobo-Díaz JF, et al. From predisposition to recovery: field evidence of interactions between the gut microbiota and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae infection. Vet Res. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41618383/

[4] Vangroenweghe FACJ. Successful Brachyspira hyodysenteriae Eradication Through a Combined Approach of a Zinc Chelate Treatment and Adapted Management Measures. Pathogens. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41598985/

[5] Gómez-Martínez S, Pérez-Pérez L, Ucero-Carrretón A, et al. Exploring the potential for competitive exclusion of commensal probiotic candidates against the insidious swine pathogen Brachyspira hyodysenteriae. Anim Microbiome. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41559772/

[6] Chagas S, Jensen P, Paladino E, et al. Immune Response of Pigs Vaccinated Against Proliferative Enteropathy and Co-Infected with Lawsonia intracellularis and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae. Animals (Basel). 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41514801/

[7] Pérez-Pérez L, Galisteo C, Sanjuán JMO, et al. Severity of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae colitis correlates to the changes observed in the microbiota composition and its associated functionality in the large intestine. Anim Microbiome. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41044758/

[8] Rohde J, Jarek M, Goethe R. Complete genome sequences of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae strains B204 and JR80. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40243424/

[9] Sato JPH, Daniel AGS, Pereira CER, et al. Experimental Infection of Pigs with a ST 245 Brachyspira hyodysenteriae Isolated from an Asymptomatic Pig in a Herd with No History of Swine Dysentery. Vet Sci. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35737338/

[10] Hakimi M, Ye F, Saxena A, et al. Genomic insights into the population structure, antimicrobial resistance, and virulence of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae from diverse geographical regions. Microbiol Spectr. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40272172/

[11] Pérez-Pérez L, Carvajal A, Puente H, et al. New insights into swine dysentery: faecal shedding, macro and microscopic lesions and biomarkers in early and acute stages of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae infection. Porcine Health Manag. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38951921/

[12] Blunt R, Mellits K, Corona-Barrera E, et al. Carriage of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae on common insect vectors. Vet Microbiol. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35427991/

[13] Arnold M, Swam H, Crienen A, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of Brachyspira spp. in pig herds with a history of diarrhoea in six European countries. Prev Vet Med. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36774781/

[14] Wallgren P. Control of swine dysentery at national level in Sweden. Acta Vet Scand. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39238024/

[15] Quintana-Hayashi MP, Zalem D, Lindén S, et al. Porcine intestinal glycosphingolipids recognized by Brachyspira hyodysenteriae. Microb Pathog. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36581306/

[16] Fodor CC, Fouhse J, Drouin D, et al. Colonic innate immune defenses and microbiota alterations in acute swine dysentery. Microb Pathog. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36371065/

[17] Challa N, Enns CB, Keith BA, et al. Decreased expression of DRA (SLC26A3) by a p38-driven IL-1α response contributes to diarrheal disease following in vivo challenge with Brachyspira spp. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39104321/

[18] Lin SJ, Helm ET, Gabler NK, et al. Acute infection with Brachyspira hyodysenteriae affects mucin expression, glycosylation, and fecal MUC5AC. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36683692/

[19] Daniel AGS, Pereira CER, Dorella F, et al. Synergic Effect of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Lawsonia intracellularis Coinfection: Anatomopathological and Microbiome Evaluation. Animals (Basel). 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37627402/

[20] Lee GI, Skou Hedemann M, Borg Jensen B, et al. Influence of infection with Brachyspira hyodysenteriae on clinical expression, growth performance, and digestibility in growing pigs fed diets varying in type and level of fiber. *J Anim

[21] Wu W, Wang L, Xie R, et al. Development and application of a triplex real-time PCR method for the detection of Lawsonia intracellularis, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, and Clostridium perfringens. Microbiol Spectr. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40366193/

[22] Wang H, Sun Y, Chen J, et al. Development and application of a quadruplex TaqMan real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR assay for four porcine digestive pathogens. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39660284/

[23] Ren J, Li F, Yu X, et al. Development of a TaqMan-based multiplex real-time PCR for simultaneous detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, and Lawsonia intracellularis. Front Vet Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39205809/

[24] Eddicks M, Reiner G, Junker S, et al. Field study on the suitability of oral fluid samples for monitoring of Lawsonia intracellularis and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae by multiplex qPCR under field conditions. Porcine Health Manag. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39773664/

[25] Vereecke N, Botteldoorn N, Brossé C, et al. Predictive Power of Long-Read Whole-Genome Sequencing for Rapid Diagnostics of Multidrug-Resistant Brachyspira hyodysenteriae Strains. Microbiol Spectr. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36602320/

[26] Hakimi M, Ye F, Stinman CC, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of U.S. porcine Brachyspira isolates and genetic diversity of B. hyodysenteriae by multilocus sequence typing. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37968893/

[27] De Lorenzi G, Gherpelli Y, Luppi A, et al. In vitro susceptibility of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae strains isolated in pigs in northern Italy between 2005 and 2022. Res Vet Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38219471/

[28] Vega C, Pérez-Pérez L, Argüello H, et al. In vitro evaluation of gentamicin activity against Spanish field isolates of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae. Porcine Health Manag. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36451249/

[29] Puentes R, Mirzadzare N, Hannawayya R, et al. A curcumin derivative metalloprotease inhibitor (CMC2.24) mitigates Brachyspira spp.-induced swine dysentery. Int Immunopharmacol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40752109/

[30] EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, et al. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in swine. EFSA J. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35317125/

[31] Vidondo B, Cadetg RS, Nathues H, et al. Factors driving pig owners' motivation and satisfaction to perform eradications from Swine dysentery. Prev Vet Med. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35430446/

[32] de Groot N, Meneguzzi M, de Souza B, et al. In Vitro Screening of Non-Antibiotic Components to Mitigate Intestinal Lesions Caused by Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, Lawsonia intracellularis and Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium. Animals (Basel). 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36139216/

[33] Parra-Aguirre JC, Nosach R, Fernando C, et al. Improving the consistency of experimental swine dysentery inoculation strategies. Vet Res. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37328906/

[34] Parra-Aguirre J, Nosach R, Fernando C, et al. Experimental natural transmission (seeder pig) models for reproduction of swine dysentery. PLoS One. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36166423/