Brachyspira pilosicoli and Porcine Intestinal Spirochetosis in Weaned Pigs

Introduction

Porcine intestinal spirochetosis (PIS) is an enteric disease of weaned pigs caused by colonization of the large intestine with the anaerobic spirochete Brachyspira pilosicoli [1]. The condition is recognized globally as a cause of nonspecific colitis and mild to moderate diarrhea in growing pigs, particularly during the post-weaning period [2, 3, 4]. B. pilosicoli is a weakly beta-hemolytic spirochete that colonizes the cecum and colon, where it attaches by one end to the apical membrane of enterocytes, a phenomenon known as "false brush border" formation [1, 45]. This attachment disrupts epithelial barrier function and leads to fluid and electrolyte malabsorption [5]. The disease is economically important for swine producers because it reduces average daily gain and feed conversion efficiency [1, 26]. B. pilosicoli also has zoonotic potential; strains isolated from humans are genetically similar to porcine strains, and infection in immunocompromised human patients has been documented [6, 7, 31]. This article provides a detailed review of the etiology, pathogenesis, clinical and pathological features, diagnostic approaches, molecular epidemiology, antimicrobial susceptibility, and control measures for B. pilosicoli infection in weaned pigs.

Etiological Agent

Brachyspira pilosicoli is a Gram-negative, anaerobic, motile spirochete that measures approximately 4 to 10 micrometers in length and 0.3 to 0.4 micrometers in diameter [1]. The bacterium possesses between 8 and 12 periplasmic flagella that facilitate its corkscrew motility in viscous environments such as intestinal mucus [1, 41]. The complete genome of the type strain P43/6/78(T) has been sequenced and consists of a single circular chromosome of approximately 2.6 megabases with a G+C content of 27.2% [42]. Comparative genomic analysis has revealed substantial genome rearrangements and reductions among strains, indicative of an ongoing reductive evolutionary process [36]. The species exhibits considerable genetic heterogeneity, driven in part by homologous recombination [8, 31]. Multilocus variable number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) has demonstrated that B. pilosicoli forms a diverse recombinant species with some geographic clustering of related strains [34]. The outer membrane proteome includes a number of exposed proteins that are potential targets for host immune responses and vaccine development [9].

B. pilosicoli is distinguishable from other Brachyspira species by its weak beta-hemolysis on blood agar, its ability to hydrolyze hippurate, and its indole-negative reaction [1, 32]. However, hippurate-negative variants have been described [47]. The species produces a number of enzymes including esterase, lipase, and phosphatase [9]. It does not produce oxidase or catalase [1].

Disease Presentation and Pathogenesis

Clinical Signs in Weaned Pigs

Porcine intestinal spirochetosis typically affects weaned pigs between 4 and 16 weeks of age [2, 3, 1]. The incubation period following experimental infection is approximately 5 to 10 days [47, 51]. Clinical signs include watery to mucoid diarrhea that is often greenish or brownish in color [10, 2]. Affected pigs may exhibit reduced appetite, lowered water intake, and a rough hair coat [1]. The diarrhea is generally non-hemorrhagic and milder than that caused by Lawsonia intracellularis or Brachyspira hyodysenteriae [2, 3]. In commercial production settings, the condition is often characterized by reduced growth rates and increased within-pen weight variation [1, 26]. Morbidity can be high (up to 50% to 90% in affected groups), but mortality is low [1]. Co-infections with other enteric pathogens, such as L. intracellularis, Escherichia coli (F4 and F18 fimbrial types), and B. hyodysenteriae, are common and can exacerbate clinical severity [2, 3, 38].

Pathogenesis and Host Cell Interactions

The pathogenesis of PIS begins with ingestion of B. pilosicoli from a contaminated environment [1]. The spirochete uses its corkscrew motility to penetrate the mucus layer of the large intestine [41]. Chemotaxis toward mucin is enhanced by norepinephrine and other catecholamines present in the gut [41]. Once at the epithelial surface, B. pilosicoli attaches by one cell end to the apical plasma membrane of colonic enterocytes [45]. This attachment is mediated by cell surface adhesins; the protein BPP43_05035 has been identified as a key adhesin that weakens the integrity of the epithelial barrier during infection [5]. The organism also binds to and aggregates erythrocytes via hemagglutination activity [30].

Attachment induces a localized disruption of the actin cytoskeleton and alters tight junction protein expression, leading to increased paracellular permeability [5, 45]. The resultant "false brush border" morphology is characterized by enterocytes with a tuft of attached spirochetes displacing the normal microvilli [1]. These changes impair sodium and water absorption and may stimulate chloride secretion, resulting in diarrheal fluid loss [1]. Importantly, the organism does not invade beyond the epithelium; inflammation is typically mild to moderate [10, 1].

The host immune response to B. pilosicoli includes production of serum IgG and mucosal IgA antibodies directed against surface proteins [11, 46]. Recombinant oligopeptide-binding proteins have been evaluated as vaccine candidates in mouse models, but a commercial vaccine for swine is not yet available [46].

Pathological Findings

Gross lesions in pigs with PIS are confined to the cecum and colon and include mild thickening of the intestinal wall, increased mucosal congestion, and a fibrinous-to-mucoid exudate adherent to the mucosal surface [10, 1]. The mesenteric lymph nodes may be mildly enlarged [10]. In severe cases, the colonic mucosa may appear edematous and hyperemic [6]. Histologically, the hallmark lesion is the attachment of spirochetes to the luminal surface of cecal and colonic enterocytes, forming a pale basophilic band on hematoxylin and eosin staining (the false brush border) [1, 45]. The underlying lamina propria may contain a mixed inflammatory infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, plasma cells, and occasional neutrophils [1]. Crypt hyperplasia and goblet cell depletion are variably present [10]. These lesions are typically less severe than those associated with swine dysentery caused by B. hyodysenteriae [1].

Diagnostic Approaches (Standard and Molecular)

Sample Collection and Culture

Antemortem diagnosis relies on the collection of fresh fecal samples from pigs with diarrhea or from rectal swabs [2, 3, 27]. B. pilosicoli is a fastidious anaerobe requiring specialized transport media and selective culture conditions [1]. Primary isolation is performed on selective agar containing spectinomycin, vancomycin, and colistin, with incubation under anaerobic conditions at 37 to 42 degrees Celsius for 3 to 7 days [1, 32]. Colonies are weakly beta-hemolytic and appear as a thin spreading film on the agar surface [32]. Identification to the species level is achieved through biochemical testing (hippurate hydrolysis, indole production, and beta-hemolysis pattern) [1, 32]. However, phenotypic identification can be ambiguous, particularly for weakly hemolytic isolates [32].

Molecular Diagnostics

Real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays are the standard for rapid and specific detection of B. pilosicoli in feces [39, 43]. Most qPCR assays target the 23S rRNA gene or the nox gene [39, 40]. However, allelic variation in the nox gene among some strains can impair detection by certain qPCR assays, necessitating careful primer and probe design [40]. Multiplex qPCR assays that simultaneously detect and quantify B. pilosicoli, B. hyodysenteriae, and L. intracellularis are widely employed in diagnostic laboratories [38, 43]. Quantitative PCR also allows estimation of bacterial load, which can be correlated with clinical severity [39].

Genotyping methods such as MLVA and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) are used for epidemiological investigations to distinguish strains and track transmission patterns within and between herds [34, 48]. Whole-genome sequencing has been used to characterize strain diversity, antimicrobial resistance determinants, and the presence of recombinant regions [8, 36].

Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) provides a rapid and accurate method for identification of Brachyspira species from culture [28, 29]. This technique generates species-specific protein mass spectra, allowing differentiation of B. pilosicoli from other porcine Brachyspira species, including B. hyodysenteriae, B. intermedia, and " B. hampsonii " [28, 29].

Serological Methods

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for detection of serum IgG specific for B. pilosicoli have been developed and used in diagnostic investigations and epidemiological surveys [11]. Serological testing can indicate prior exposure but is less useful for diagnosing active infection because antibodies persist after resolution of disease [11].

Table 1: Summary of Diagnostic Methods for Porcine Intestinal Spirochetosis

Epidemiological Patterns

Prevalence and Geographic Distribution

B. pilosicoli has a worldwide distribution and has been reported in pig populations across Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia [12, 13, 14, 15, 1]. Prevalence estimates vary widely depending on the diagnostic method used, the age group sampled, and the clinical status of the herd. In European studies, the within-herd prevalence in pig batches with a history of diarrhea ranges from 8% to 68% [2, 12, 3]. In Swiss pig herds, the prevalence of B. pilosicoli was found to be 13.8% at the farm level [13]. In Argentina, fecal samples from finishing pigs showed a prevalence of 6.7% [14]. In the United States, B. pilosicoli has been isolated from swine with clinical disease and is considered an emerging pathogen in some regions [16, 37].

Transmission and Risk Factors

Transmission occurs via the fecal-oral route through ingestion of contaminated feces or exposure to contaminated environments [1]. The organism can survive for several weeks in moist feces and slurry [1]. Risk factors for PIS in weaned pigs include recent weaning stress, dietary changes, high stocking density, poor hygiene, and concurrent infections with other enteric pathogens [2, 17, 49]. Dietary factors such as the inclusion of high levels of insoluble fiber (e.g., distillers dried grains with solubles) have been associated with increased severity of Brachyspira-associated colitis [26]. Diets that increase the viscosity of intestinal contents also stimulate proliferation of B. pilosicoli [50]. The use of oral antibacterial treatments, particularly those with activity against Gram-negative anaerobes, can influence the within-herd prevalence and the development of antimicrobial resistance [13, 17].

Zoonotic Considerations

B. pilosicoli is a recognized zoonotic pathogen. Human infection, termed intestinal spirochetosis, has been documented in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals [18, 19, 6, 7]. Phylogenetic analyses have demonstrated that some human isolates cluster closely with porcine strains, suggesting zoonotic transmission occurs, likely through direct contact with pigs or contaminated pork products [20, 31]. The clinical significance in humans remains a subject of debate; some individuals are asymptomatic carriers, while others develop chronic diarrhea and abdominal pain [19].

Treatment, Antimicrobial Susceptibility, and Resistance

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of B. pilosicoli is performed using broth dilution or agar dilution methods following standardized protocols [21, 16]. The most commonly tested antimicrobial agents include tiamulin, valnemulin, lincomycin, tylosin, doxycycline, and amoxicillin [13, 16, 35, 37]. International ring trials have validated AST protocols for B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli, improving inter-laboratory comparability [21].

Patterns of Resistance

Susceptibility profiles vary geographically and over time. In a survey of US swine isolates, high rates of resistance to tylosin and oxytetracycline were observed, while tiamulin and valnemulin retained good activity [16]. In Swiss herds, resistance to tiamulin was low but resistance to doxycycline was common [13]. Isolates from Sweden collected between 1990 and 2010 showed a gradual increase in minimum inhibitory concentrations for tiamulin and valnemulin [35]. In some European countries, resistance to lincomycin and tylosin is widespread [32]. The emergence of resistance is driven by the selective pressure of antimicrobial use in pig production [17, 22].

Mechanisms of Resistance

Resistance in B. pilosicoli can be mediated by target site mutations, efflux pumps, and enzymatic degradation. The organism carries genes encoding class D beta-lactamases (OXA-63 group), which confer resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics [23]. Substitutions in 23S rRNA have been linked to macrolide and lincosamide resistance [1]. The metabolic response to tiamulin exposure includes continued metabolic activity despite significant growth inhibition, indicative of a bacteriostatic effect rather than rapid bactericidal activity [24].

Treatment Guidelines

Therapeutic options for PIS are limited because many common antimicrobials are no longer effective due to resistance [1, 22]. Treatment is typically administered via feed or water medication. Tiamulin and valnemulin are considered drugs of choice in many regions due to their high activity against Brachyspira species [13, 16]. Doxycycline may be used but efficacy varies [13]. No antimicrobial agent is uniformly effective across all populations, and susceptibility testing is recommended to guide therapy [21, 16].

Control and Prevention

Biosecurity and Management

Control of PIS relies primarily on improved biosecurity and management practices. All-in/all-out production systems reduce the carryover of infection between groups [1]. Thorough cleaning and disinfection of pens between batches is essential; B. pilosicoli is susceptible to common disinfectants (e.g., hypochlorite, phenolic compounds, and glutaraldehyde) [1]. Rodent and bird control reduces the risk of mechanical transmission [1]. Feed and water hygiene should be maintained to minimize fecal contamination [2].

Nutritional Strategies

Nutritional interventions can reduce the severity of PIS. Diets formulated with moderate levels of fermentable fiber and low intestinal viscosity inhibit proliferation of the spirochete [50]. Avoiding high levels of insoluble fiber (e.g., DDGS) during the post-weaning period is recommended in herds with endemic PIS [26]. Supplemental zinc oxide (at pharmacological levels) has been used to reduce overall enteric disease severity, though regulatory restrictions on high-dose zinc are increasing in some regions [2].

Vaccination

No commercial vaccine against B. pilosicoli is currently available for swine. Experimental vaccines based on recombinant outer membrane proteins, such as oligopeptide-binding proteins, have shown some protective efficacy in mouse models but have not been translated to pigs [46].

Antimicrobial Stewardship

Given the increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance, prudent use of antimicrobials is mandatory. Targeted treatment of affected groups (metaphylaxis) based on susceptibility test results is preferable to blanket medication [21, 16]. Routine surveillance of susceptibility patterns within a production system is recommended to detect emerging resistance [13, 22].

Diagnostic Workflow

The following flowchart summarizes a recommended diagnostic approach for porcine intestinal spirochetosis in weaned pigs.

flowchart TD
    A["Clinical suspicion: watery diarrhea, reduced growth in weaned pigs (4-16 weeks)"] --> B["Collect fresh fecal samples or rectal swabs"]
    B --> C["Submit to diagnostic laboratory"]
    C --> D{"Diagnostic pathway"}
    
    D --> E["Anaerobic culture on selective agar<br>(spectinomycin, vancomycin, colistin)<br>Incubate 37-42°C, 3-7 days"]
    D --> F["DNA extraction and qPCR<br>("target: nox or 23S rRNA")"]
    D --> G["Necropsy with histopathology<br>("cecum and colon; hematoxylin and eosin stain")"]
    
    E --> H["Weak beta-hemolytic colonies<br>Biochemical identification<br>(hippurate +, indole -)"]
    H --> I["MALDI-TOF MS confirmation<br>or species-specific PCR"]
    I --> J["Antimicrobial susceptibility testing<br>(broth or agar dilution)"]
    
    F --> K["Positive result?<br>Cq value indicates bacterial load"]
    K --> L["Consider co-infections:<br>multiplex qPCR for B. hyodysenteriae<br>and L. intracellularis"]
    
    G --> M["False brush border attachment,<br>mild to moderate colitis"]
    M --> N["Confirm with histochemistry<br>(Warthin-Starry silver stain or IHC)"]
    
    J --> O["Clinical management:<br>Select antimicrobial based on AST<br>(e.g., tiamulin, valnemulin)"]
    L --> O
    N --> O
    
    O --> P["Implement control measures:<br>biosecurity, diet modification,<br>all-in/all-out flow"]

Conclusions

Brachyspira pilosicoli is a significant enteric pathogen of weaned pigs, causing porcine intestinal spirochetosis characterized by mild to moderate diarrhea and reduced growth performance. The organism colonizes the large intestine via a specialized attachment mechanism that disrupts epithelial barrier function. Diagnosis has shifted from culture and biochemical identification toward molecular techniques (qPCR) that provide rapid, sensitive detection and allow quantification of bacterial load and identification of coinfections. MALDI-TOF MS offers a complementary culture-based identification method. The species demonstrates high genetic diversity and a growing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance, particularly to macrolides and tetracyclines. Effective control requires integration of biosecurity measures, nutritional management, and judicious antimicrobial use guided by susceptibility testing. The zoonotic potential of B. pilosicoli underscores the importance of continued surveillance and research into this underrecognized pathogen.

References

[1] Hampson DJ. The Spirochete Brachyspira pilosicoli, Enteric Pathogen of Animals and Humans. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29187397/

[2] Eriksen EØ, Kudirkiene E, Barington K et al. An observational field study of porcine post-weaning diarrhea: clinical and microbiological findings, and fecal pH-measurements as a potential diagnostic tool. Porcine Health Manag. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37434248/

[3] Musse SL, Nielsen GB, Stege H et al. Prevalences and excretion levels of Lawsonia intracellularis, Brachyspira pilosicoli and Escherichia coli F4 and F18 in fecal sock samples from Danish weaner and finisher pig batches and the association with diarrhea. Porcine Health Manag. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36307895/

[4] Weber N, Nielsen JP, Jakobsen AS et al. Occurrence of diarrhoea and intestinal pathogens in non-medicated nursery pigs. Acta Vet Scand. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26419751/

[5] Rajan A, Gallego P, Dolan B et al. BPP43_05035 is a Brachyspira pilosicoli cell surface adhesin that weakens the integrity of the epithelial barrier during infection. Gut Microbes. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39349383/

[6] Chatani M, Kishita M, Inatomi O et al. Severe Colitis with Portal Venous Gas Caused by Brachyspira pilosicoli Infection. Intern Med. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31787630/

[7] Eguchi T, Inoue K, Horino T et al. Intestinal Spirochetosis Caused by Brachyspira pilosicoli in a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patient. J Clin Rheumatol. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31764507/

[8] Pandey A, Humbert MV, Jackson A et al. Evidence of homologous recombination as a driver of diversity in Brachyspira pilosicoli. Microb Genom. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33174833/

[9] Casas V, Vadillo S, San Juan C et al. The Exposed Proteomes of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli. Front Microbiol. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27493641/

[10] Neis LZ, Rodrigues RO, Bertagnolli AC et al. Visual and microscopic lesions of enteritis in slaughtered swine: pathogen identification and antimicrobial resistance implications. Vet Res Commun. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42043640/

[11] Gothe J, Horn M, Baums CG et al. Detection of Serum IgG Specific for Brachyspira pilosicoli and "Brachyspira canis" in Dogs. Vet Sci. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39057986/

[12] 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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36774781/

[13] Arnold M, Schmitt S, Collaud A et al. Distribution, genetic heterogeneity, and antimicrobial susceptibility of Brachyspira pilosicoli in Swiss pig herds. Vet Microbiol. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35429815/

[14] Carranza A, Parada J, Tamiozzo P et al. Identification and distribution of Brachyspira species in feces from finishing pigs in Argentina. Vet World. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33935405/

[15] Dors A, Czyżewska-Dors E, Woźniakowski G. A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs. F1000Res. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33824718/

[16] Mirajkar NS, Davies PR, Gebhart CJ. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns of Brachyspira Species Isolated from Swine Herds in the United States. J Clin Microbiol. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27252458/

[17] Jensen VF, Jorsal SL, Toft N. A cross-sectional study of oral antibacterial treatment patterns in relation to specific diarrhoeal pathogens in weaner pigs. Vet Microbiol. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28619141/

[18] Dhorajiya P, Singal M, Mannan R. Intestinal spirochetosis in the modern era: a decade-long clinicopathologic study. Am J Clin Pathol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42289886/

[19] Eslick GD, Fan K, Nair PM et al. Clinical and Pathologic Factors Associated With Colonic Spirochete (Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira aalborgi) Infection: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37289435/

[20] Neo E, La T, Phillips ND et al. Correction to: The pathogenic intestinal spirochaete Brachyspira pilosicoli forms a diverse recombinant species demonstrating some local clustering of related strains and potential for zoonotic spread. Gut Pathog. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31636717/

[21] Stubberfield E, Pringle M, Landén A et al. Validation of an antimicrobial susceptibility testing protocol for Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Brachyspira pilosicoli in an international ring trial. Vet Microbiol. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32402332/

[22] Hampson DJ, La T, Phillips ND. Emergence of Bra

[23] La T, Neo E, Phillips ND et al. Genes encoding ten newly designated OXA-63 group class D β-lactamases identified in strains of the pathogenic intestinal spirochaete Brachyspira pilosicoli. J Med Microbiol. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26315325/

[24] Le Roy CI, Passey JL, Woodward MJ et al. Metabonomics-based analysis of Brachyspira pilosicoli's response to tiamulin reveals metabolic activity despite significant growth inhibition. Anaerobe. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28373121/

[25] Le Roy CI, Mappley LJ, La Ragione RM et al. Brachyspira pilosicoli-induced avian intestinal spirochaetosis. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26679774/

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.