Dichelobacter nodosus (Ovine Footrot): Etiology, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Integrated Control

Introduction

Ovine footrot is a highly contagious, painful, and economically devastating bacterial disease of sheep and other ruminants, caused primarily by the Gram-negative, anaerobic bacterium Dichelobacter nodosus [1]. The disease is characterized by interdigital dermatitis and, in virulent forms, progressive underrunning of the hoof horn capsule leading to severe lameness [2]. D. nodosus is a fastidious obligate anaerobe that colonizes the interdigital skin and requires synergy with other bacteria, notably Fusobacterium necrophorum, to establish infection [3, 4]. The economic impact arises from reduced weight gain, decreased wool quality, treatment costs, and premature culling [5]. This article provides an exhaustive review of the microbiology, virulence mechanisms, epidemiology, diagnostic methods, treatment strategies, and vaccine development for D. nodosus.

Microbiology and Virulence Factors

Dichelobacter nodosus is a slender, rod-shaped, Gram-negative bacterium with characteristic terminal swellings. It is a strict anaerobe that grows optimally in reducing environments supplemented with specific amino acids and peptides [6]. The bacterium possesses type IV fimbriae (pili) encoded by the fimA gene, which mediate adherence to host epithelium and are the basis for serogroup classification [7]. Ten serogroups (A–I and M) have been described based on fimA sequence variation [8, 9].

Virulence is primarily associated with extracellular proteases, particularly the subtilisin-like serine protease AprV2, encoded by the aprV2 gene [10, 11]. The presence of aprV2 is a molecular marker for virulent strains, whereas the allelic variant aprB2 is associated with benign strains that cause only mild interdigital dermatitis [10]. However, experimental studies have shown that not all aprV2-positive strains induce severe disease, indicating that additional factors contribute to virulence [11, 12]. In vitro elastase testing remains a gold standard for phenotypic virulence assessment, but its correlation with clinical expression can be influenced by environmental conditions and strain heterogeneity [13].

The bacterium also produces outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) that carry immunogenic proteins, including outer membrane proteins, toxins, and lipoproteins [14]. These OMVs have been shown to induce protective immune responses in mice, supporting their potential as vaccine candidates [14]. Whole-genome sequencing of a virulent serogroup B strain from India revealed a genome size of 1.31 Mb with 1215 protein-coding genes, providing insights into metabolic and virulence pathways [15].

Epidemiology and Host Range

Dichelobacter nodosus is primarily a pathogen of sheep, but it can also infect goats, cattle, and occasionally wild ruminants [16, 17]. In Switzerland, a large cross-sectional study estimated the true prevalence of virulent D. nodosus in sheep at 16.9% at animal level and 16.2% at farm level, while cattle and goats were largely free of virulent strains [16]. In German sheep flocks, a prevalence of 42.9% was reported, with virulent strains accounting for over 90% of positive results [2]. Similar high prevalences have been documented in the United Kingdom, where footrot is endemic in the vast majority of flocks [10], and in Portugal (96.2% of positive samples were virulent) [3].

Co-infection with Fusobacterium necrophorum is common and associated with greater disease severity [18, 3]. F. necrophorum is a secondary invader that facilitates the anaerobic environment required by D. nodosus and contributes to tissue necrosis [4]. The epidemiology of footrot is influenced by host breed, with breeds such as Romney showing lower risk and Swifter showing higher risk of infection [5]. Environmental factors, including wet conditions, poor biosecurity, and management practices such as footbathing and antibiotic use, also play critical roles [19, 20, 5].

Wild ruminants, including Alpine ibex, red deer, and chamois, have low prevalence of D. nodosus and are unlikely to serve as significant reservoirs for domestic sheep [17, 21]. Captive even-toed ungulates in zoological collections have been found free of both benign and virulent strains [21]. These findings support the feasibility of national eradication programs that target sheep flocks alone [16, 17].

Clinical Signs and Pathogenesis

The clinical presentation of footrot ranges from mild interdigital dermatitis (score 1–2) to severe underrunning of the horn capsule (scores 3–5) [2]. Virulent strains cause progressive separation of the hoof horn from the underlying soft tissue, leading to lameness, pain, and reduced mobility [22]. Benign strains typically cause only superficial inflammation without underrun [10]. The incubation period following contact with infected sheep can be as short as three days, with detectable bacterial DNA by PCR appearing before clinical signs [22].

Systemic effects include neutrophilic leukocytosis, lymphopenia, monocytosis, and increased levels of haptoglobin, fibrinogen, cortisol, and glucose, while albumin decreases [23]. These acute-phase protein changes reflect the inflammatory and stress response to infection [23].

Histopathological examination of infected tissue reveals bacterial colonization, inflammatory infiltration, and tissue damage [14]. The bacterium is highly specialized for the hoof environment and does not persist in soil for extended periods; its survival depends on continuous passage through infected feet [4]. Persistence has been documented in soil under certain conditions, but fade-out occurs without re-infection from sheep [4].

Diagnosis

Accurate laboratory diagnosis is essential for confirming footrot and differentiating virulent from benign strains. Real-time PCR targeting the aprV2/aprB2 genes is the preferred method for virulence typing direct from interdigital swabs [24, 25]. This approach offers high sensitivity and specificity compared to bacterial culture, which is slow and requires fastidious anaerobic conditions [24]. PCR testing has been successfully used for risk-based pooled sampling (pools of five), reducing costs without sacrificing sensitivity [24].

Serogroup classification is performed using multiplex PCR assays targeting the fimA gene [7, 26]. These assays can detect multiple serogroups in a single swab, revealing that co-infections with multiple serogroups are common [7, 8]. In Germany, serogroups A, B, H, and C were most prevalent [8]; in England, H and B were most common [9]; in the Netherlands, nine serogroups were detected with high sensitivity [7].

Alternative molecular methods include loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for in-field detection of aprV2-positive strains [27]. The VDN LAMP assay demonstrated 89% sensitivity and 97% specificity when performed on moist, clean feet [27]. The elastase test remains a phenotypic virulence assay used to support clinical diagnosis, but its interpretation requires consideration of environmental conditions and strain diversity [13].

The diagnostic workflow is illustrated in Figure 1.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical suspicion of footrot], > B[Interdigital swab collection]
    B, > C[DNA extraction]
    C, > D[Real-time PCR: aprV2/aprB2 detection]
    D, > E{Virulence status}
    E, >|aprV2 positive| F[Virulent D. nodosus]
    E, >|aprB2 positive| G[Benign D. nodosus]
    E, >|Both positive| H[Mixed infection]
    F, > I[Serogroup multiplex PCR (fimA)]
    G, > I
    H, > I
    I, > J[Serogroup identification (A-I, M)]
    J, > K[Treatment decision: footbaths, antibiotics, vaccine formulation]

Treatment and Control

Effective control of footrot requires a combination of biosecurity, flock management, and therapeutic interventions. Footbathing with disinfectants is a cornerstone of control. Formaldehyde, zinc sulfate, and copper sulfate have been widely used but are carcinogenic or environmentally harmful [28]. Alternative disinfectants such as 6% Desintec (a registered biocide) have been shown to be as effective as 4% formaldehyde in ex vivo models, with lower toxicity [28]. Field validation of a glutaraldehyde-based footbath product showed ineffective reduction of D. nodosus load when applied as a single or weekly treatment [29].

A stand-in footbath protocol using a non-carcinogenic disinfectant combined with a prewash waterbath reduced the number of treatments needed [20]. Selective use of long-acting oxytetracycline improved recovery for animals with lesion scores ≥3, but antibiotic treatment did not significantly reduce overall footbath frequency [20]. In another field study, a spray formulation applied three times within one week achieved complete elimination of virulent D. nodosus and clinical improvement within one week [19].

Whole-flock systemic macrolide treatment has been used to achieve footrot-free status, but concerns about antimicrobial resistance limit its recommendation [29, 25]. The impact of footbathing on the antimicrobial resistance profile of the interdigital bacterial community is an emerging concern [29]. Resistance to tetracycline and ampicillin in Enterobacteriaceae has been documented in sheep after footbathing with a glutaraldehyde-based product [29].

Vaccine Development

Vaccination against D. nodosus has been challenging due to serogroup diversity and suboptimal efficacy of multivalent commercial vaccines [8, 9]. Bivalent vaccines targeting two serogroups provide greater protection than nine-valent formulations but are only effective if the target serogroups are present in the flock [8]. A large survey in England found that no single bivalent vaccine could protect the national flock because serogroups are distributed randomly and 50 different serogroup combinations were observed [9].

Recent progress includes the development of outer membrane vesicle (OMV) vaccines derived from D. nodosus [14]. In a mouse model, OMVs induced significant humoral and cell-mediated immune responses, with upregulation of TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-1, and provided 100% protection against intraperitoneal challenge with 10 LD50 doses [14]. Histopathological examination showed reduced tissue damage and bacterial colonization in immunized mice [14]. These findings suggest OMV-based vaccines could offer broad protection and overcome serogroup restrictions.

In India, a whole-cell killed vaccine based on the predominant serogroup B has been developed, and genome sequencing of the vaccine strain has identified 21 novel genes that may improve vaccine design [15]. Serogroup-specific vaccination guided by real-time PCR serogrouping of lesion swabs is a promising strategy for flock-specific control [26].

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary causative agent of ovine footrot?

The primary causative agent is Dichelobacter nodosus, a Gram-negative, anaerobic bacterium that colonizes the interdigital skin and hoof horn [1].

How is virulent footrot distinguished from benign footrot?

Virulent footrot is associated with the presence of the aprV2 gene encoding a subtilisin-like protease, while benign strains carry the aprB2 allele [10]. Phenotypic elastase testing is also used for virulence classification [13].

Which diagnostic method is most sensitive for detecting Dichelobacter nodosus?

Real-time PCR targeting aprV2/aprB2 is the most sensitive and specific method for detection and virulence typing from interdigital swabs [24, 25].

Can footrot be eradicated from a flock?

Yes, footrot can be eliminated through a combination of careful hoof trimming, footbathing (e.g., with 6% Desintec or formaldehyde alternatives), selective antibiotic use, and strict biosecurity to prevent re-introduction [19, 20, 25].

Are there effective vaccines against Dichelobacter nodosus?

Current commercial vaccines have limited efficacy due to serogroup diversity [8, 9]. Serogroup-specific autogenous vaccines and novel OMV-based vaccines show promise for improved protection [14, 26].

References

[1] CABI Compendium. Dichelobacter nodosus. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0fb5d24a77833e70c381d7ccf5f130d3d541d256

[2] Storms J, Wirth A, Vasiliadis D, et al. Prevalence of Dichelobacter nodosus and Ovine Footrot in German Sheep Flocks. Animals. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e050787a6dd68dad4368cd52651a510eb483c957

[3] Albuquerque C, Cavaco S, Caetano P, et al. Ovine footrot in Southern Portugal: Detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in sheep with different lesion scores. Veterinary Microbiology. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/341ed529ad16e1e083452f8387b6345f715ff45f

[4] Clifton R, Giebel K, Liu N, et al. Sites of persistence of Fusobacterium necrophorum and Dichelobacter nodosus: a paradigm shift in understanding the epidemiology of footrot in sheep. Scientific Reports. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4384d1479164dd56b09f821d80da3fa0b41221e7

[5] Storms J, Wirth A, Vasiliadis D, et al. Risk factors associated with the infection of sheep with Dichelobacter nodosus. Scientific Reports. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb968aa97b3aa9486b4b0c41c3c018257d329154

[6] Quraishi A, Tarfain NU, Hussain I, et al. Optimization of growth conditions for Dichelobacter nodosus in a modified reducing broth without gas phase. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf802d1fb5568ca57c7ccde8838c97e32b14ca6f

[7] Duim B, Dekker N, Everts RR, et al. Rapid serogroup classification of the footrot pathogen Dichelobacter nodosus using multiplex qPCR of lesion samples from sheep in the Netherlands. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2026. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d34eca7f865f9f49a7323db1da54d5a8b7c5bc01

[8] Budnik M, Struck A, Storms J, et al. Serological Diversity of Dichelobacter nodosus in German Sheep Flocks. Animals. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/39d6cd06dac39a3f94c7767de659ac59c3d160d3

[9] Prosser N, Monaghan E, Green L, et al. Serogroups of Dichelobacter nodosus, the cause of footrot in sheep, are randomly distributed across England. Scientific Reports. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9221aa59f0b404d2c6f34272373aeefb2c7ba07f

[10] Monaghan EM, Prosser N, Witt J, et al. Impact of Strain Variation of Dichelobacter nodosus on Disease Severity and Presence in Sheep Flocks in England. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f013a4751d0f437a05e8b049c17d3f8598ced6f6

[11] Smith KJ, Rosser MJ, McPherson A, et al. The severity of footrot lesions induced by aprV2-positive strains of Dichelobacter nodosus varies between strains. Australian Veterinary Journal. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b4e8c29e9cfceed202f2f0f166e47f178b17ce1a

[12] Smith K, Rosser M, McPherson A, et al. O-121 The severity of footrot lesions induced by aprV2 positive strains of Dichelobacter nodosus. Animal - science proceedings. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b72b6c1006cd972dfd632223b258c370474f6a0 *** 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.

[13] Collins A, Collins D, Dhungyel O. The virulence of Dichelobacter nodosus, measured by the elastase test, is an important predictor for virulent footrot diagnosis in New South Wales sheep flocks. Australian Veterinary Journal. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b2f169bb7b47e6507c752bb4dee6a5e37590d3ca

[14] He X, Shi Y, Liu JY, et al. The isolation and immunoprotective efficacy of outer membrane vesicles of Dichelobacter nodosus. Veterinary Microbiology. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/45d2421a2eb962e521cd453dcac154c32ffa295e

[15] Qureshi S, Wani SA, Farooq S, et al. Genome sequence of Dichelobacter nodosus JKS-07B isolate from J&K, India associated with virulent footrot of sheep. Science in progress. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/03903e2cbe97097d7755503b6783802b4aa85bc9

[16] Ardüser F, Moore-Jones G, Gobeli Brawand S, et al. Dichelobacter nodosus in sheep, cattle, goats and South American camelids in Switzerland-Assessing prevalence in potential hosts in order to design targeted disease control measures. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0579b75e2c22403a0622fc623ba37ab2a3bea016

[17] Moore-Jones G, Ardüser F, Dürr S, et al. Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: A prevalence study. PLoS ONE. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab7460027e0a55742a3021a41e03168a33c2e199

[18] Bamouh Z, Elkarhat Z, Zouagui Z, et al. The prevalence, virulence, and serogroups of Dichelobacter nodosus and prevalence of Fusobacterium necrophorum in footrot lesions of sheep and cattle in Morocco. Veterinary World. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6add8cf7ab704413402db4a9a3925fb03ed72320

[19] Loosli N, Brodard I, Kittl S, et al. Field validation of an antibiotic-free hoof spray to effectively treat ovine footrot by eliminating virulent Dichelobacter nodosus. Veterinary Microbiology. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4fc0fe87ac5d996644b855b223b99aa75dfb0be4

[20] Schmid R, Steiner A, Becker J, et al. Field Validation of a Non-carcinogenic and Eco-Friendly Disinfectant in a Stand-In Footbath for Treatment of Footrot Associated With aprV2-Positive Strains of Dichelobacter nodosus in Swiss Sheep Flocks. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f239c28c3c51e79a7959d99466cca46af92a39c8

[21] Hoby S, Steiner A, Kuhnert P, et al. Foot health and prevalence of Dichelobacter nodosus in 11 ungulate species at Berne Animal Park. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4d3e80a54d15e7d3f304e123f466063375e08f4e

[22] Kuhnert P, Cippà V, Härdi-Landerer MC, et al. Early Infection Dynamics of Dichelobacter nodosus During an Ovine Experimental Footrot In Contact Infection. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e9244cb2eb2bae696e55c99367dec2bcf5661705

[23] Atata JA, Alabi O, Ajadi A, et al. Haematological, Serum Biochemical and Acute Phase Protein Profiles of Sheep with Footrot Infection caused by Dichelobacter nodosus. Sahel Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aba83899ae7ce4d8f3369af95f9715454e4c176b

[24] Meißl A, Duenser M, Eller C, et al. Prevalence of Dichelobacter nodosus in western Austrian sheep flocks: Comparison of bacterial cultures, clinical foot rot and lameness with PCR and analysis of sample pooling for PCR diagnosis. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/68425bd0d9aa3dccfb5959f2b7ace13080721bb3

[25] Kraft A, Kraft A, Strobel H, et al. The prevalence of Dichelobacter nodosus in clinically footrot-free sheep flocks: a comparative field study on elimination strategies. BMC Veterinary Research. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d67b2d561ae304f3688ccc4f4068848144ea4021

[26] McPherson A, Dhungyel O, Whittington R. Detection and Serogrouping of Dichelobacter nodosus Infection by Use of Direct PCR from Lesion Swabs To Support Outbreak-Specific Vaccination for Virulent Footrot in Sheep. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2018. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d82770b71f18ae0e356e799b06b6f0d7752a0a91

[27] Best N, Rawlin G, Suter R, et al. Optimization of a Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) Assay for In-Field Detection of Dichelobacter nodosus With aprV2 (VDN LAMP) in Victorian Sheep Flocks. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f073195b1038a1f32a52edddbd189b975a550744

[28] Hidber T, Pauli U, Steiner A, et al. In vitro and ex vivo testing of alternative disinfectants to currently used more harmful substances in footbaths against Dichelobacter nodosus. PLoS ONE. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/44611fe38771fcdb7a25d1228b7cc122df2081f5

[29] Marshall H, Blanchard A, Kelly KR, et al. The impact of glutaraldehyde based footbaths on Dichelobacter nodosus prevalence and the antimicrobial resistant community of the ovine interdigital skin. Veterinary Microbiology. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d3ea4185773fd6b08dfc6177ffe982f422e17473

[30] Sulaiman R, Marif H, Ali B, et al. Genetic Variability and Antibacterial Sensitivity of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum Infection in Sheep Sulaimani Province, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. The Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0e579432a2d1e003b8dac435379ffc8982506a97

[31] Groenevelt M, Dekker C, Dhungyel O, et al. O-174 Serogroups of Dichelobacter nodosus detected in footrot lesions in sheep using a new multiplex real-time PCR. Animal - science proceedings. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/72b8b6b983a8d794526eacb888361dafb18b1bb0

[32] Mudroň P, Tóthová C, Osová A, et al. Prevalence of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum on dairy farms in Slovakia. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/49ea038ee8b7dc1e905c01729b444226b6c52d1a

[33] Best CM, Roden J, Phillips K, et al. Characterisation of Dichelobacter nodosus on Misshapen and Damaged Ovine Feet: A Longitudinal Study of Four UK Sheep Flocks. Animals. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a9c83f294aff076ed48bca4d11ed029260b75382

[34] Wani SA, Farooq S, Kashoo Z, et al. Determination of prevalence, serological diversity, and virulence of Dichelobacter nodosus in ovine footrot with identification of its predominant serotype as a potential vaccine candidate in J&K, India. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fb89b4502fb978fa19cdae1b3094367ba0bb2080

[35] Ania S, Fernandez A, Baselga C, et al. O-120 Detection and characterization of Dichelobacter nodosus and Treponema sp. involved in clinical cases of lameness in small ruminants. Animal - science proceedings. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8376ab33f3b54d3beca6e14482bc555cb747f70f