Dichelobacter nodosus: Ovine Footrot – Diagnosis, Control, and Eradication Strategies

Introduction

Ovine footrot is a contagious, debilitating bacterial disease of sheep that causes significant economic losses and welfare concerns in all major sheep-producing regions [1, 2]. The essential causative agent is Dichelobacter nodosus, a Gram-negative, strictly anaerobic, fastidious rod that is an obligate parasite of the ruminant hoof [3, 1, 31]. The disease manifests along a clinical spectrum ranging from mild interdigital dermatitis (benign footrot) to severe underrunning and separation of the hoof horn from the underlying sensitive tissue (virulent footrot) [1, 31]. Warm, wet environmental conditions favour disease expression, and under optimal conditions clinical signs can appear within two to three weeks of infection [1, 50]. The pathogenesis involves a complex interplay between the pathogen, the host immune response, environmental factors, and co-infecting bacteria such as Fusobacterium necrophorum [4, 28, 114]. This article provides a detailed review of the biology, virulence mechanisms, diagnostic approaches, control measures, and eradication strategies for D. nodosus infection in sheep.

Pathogen Biology and Virulence Factors

D. nodosus is a member of the family Cardiobacteriaceae and is characterized by its fastidious anaerobic growth requirements [3, 130]. The bacterium possesses type IV fimbriae that mediate adherence to the interdigital epithelium and are the major host-protective immunogens [26, 76]. Fimbrial antigens form the basis of serogroup classification, with ten recognized serogroups (A through I and M) based on K-type agglutination [26, 39, 140]. Serogroup distribution varies geographically; for example, serogroup B is predominant in India, Australia, and parts of Europe [4, 5, 38, 80].

The most critical virulence determinant is the extracellular acidic protease encoded by the aprV2 gene in virulent strains and the aprB2 gene in benign strains [3, 31, 48]. The AprV2 and AprB2 proteases differ by a single amino acid substitution that confers thermostability and elastinolytic activity to the virulent form [31, 52]. This elastase activity is the basis of the phenotypic elastase test used for virulence determination [6, 54]. Additional virulence-associated regions include the intA integrase gene, which is associated with the presence of a mobile genetic element that modulates protease production [7, 37, 38, 61]. Genomic studies have demonstrated a globally conserved bimodal population structure, with virulent and benign isolates forming two distinct clades irrespective of geographic origin [31, 35]. The vrl gene cluster and other genomic islands also contribute to virulence [8, 34, 56, 60].

Clinical Disease and Epidemiology

Clinical footrot is initiated when D. nodosus colonizes the interdigital skin, often facilitated by maceration due to wet pasture conditions [1, 50]. The disease progresses from interdigital erythema and exudation (score 1-2) to underrunning of the hoof horn (score 3-5) [6, 2]. Virulent strains cause progressive separation of the horn from the underlying tissue, leading to lameness, pain, and reduced productivity [1, 46]. Benign strains typically cause only mild, self-limiting interdigital dermatitis [31, 150].

The prevalence of D. nodosus in sheep populations varies widely. In Germany, a field study reported a mean animal-level prevalence of 42.93%, with 90.35% of positive swabs containing virulent strains [2]. In Sweden, prevalence is lower, with recent estimates of 5.7% at the individual level [83]. In southern Portugal, 96.2% of D. nodosus-positive samples from affected flocks were virulent [4]. Environmental factors such as soil type, temperature, and moisture influence bacterial survival; D. nodosus can survive for over 30 days in clay soil at 5°C, longer than previously recognized [27]. Transmission occurs through direct contact between infected and susceptible sheep, as well as indirectly via contaminated yards and pasture [146]. Co-grazing with cattle can also lead to cross-infection, as both virulent and benign ovine strains can be transferred to cattle and vice versa [87, 95, 115, 120].

Diagnosis

Accurate diagnosis of ovine footrot requires integration of clinical examination, environmental assessment, and laboratory testing [6, 9]. Clinical scoring systems (0 to 5) are widely used, but differentiation between virulent and benign disease can be challenging, especially under dry conditions when disease expression is suppressed [6, 3].

Clinical Diagnosis

Clinical diagnosis is based on the prevalence and severity of foot lesions, flock history, and environmental conditions [6, 9]. Logistic regression models have shown that the best predictors of virulent footrot diagnosis are the prevalence of severe lesions (scores 4 and 5), wet and warm environmental conditions, and recent footrot history [6, 9]. However, clinical examination alone cannot reliably detect subclinical carriers [72].

Laboratory Diagnosis

Laboratory methods include bacterial culture, phenotypic virulence tests, and molecular assays. Culture of D. nodosus requires specialized anaerobic media and is time-consuming, with sensitivity lower than PCR [10, 45]. Phenotypic tests such as the elastase test and gelatin gel test measure protease thermostability and elastinolytic activity [6, 11, 3, 54]. The elastase test has high diagnostic specificity for virulent footrot at the flock level (78.6%) and good sensitivity (100%) when combined with clinical data [6, 3]. However, variation in elastase activity among isolates from the same flock can complicate interpretation; calculating the mean elastase rate improves correlation with clinical diagnosis [6].

Molecular diagnostics have largely replaced culture for routine detection. Real-time PCR (rtPCR) assays targeting the 16S rRNA gene for species identification and the aprV2/aprB2 genes for virulence determination are widely used [12, 3, 10, 121]. Competitive rtPCR can discriminate the two-nucleotide difference between aprV2 and aprB2 [10]. The diagnostic sensitivity of rtPCR is significantly higher than culture, with a specificity of 98.3% for virulent strains [10]. However, the clinical utility of aprV2 detection alone is debated; some studies found poor agreement between qPCR results and clinical diagnosis, particularly at the individual animal level [3, 9]. The presence of aprV2 does not always correlate with disease expression, as host genetics, immunity, and environmental conditions modulate clinical outcome [9, 31].

Pooling of interdigital swab samples (e.g., pools of five) has been validated as a cost-effective strategy for flock-level surveillance without significant loss of diagnostic sensitivity [12, 45]. Sample pooling is particularly useful in control programs where large numbers of animals must be screened [12, 45].

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays have been developed for field detection of virulent D. nodosus (VDN LAMP) [85, 96, 105]. When used under optimal conditions (moist, clean feet; alkaline polyethylene glycol buffer), VDN LAMP achieved 89% sensitivity and 97% specificity compared to rtPCR [85]. However, performance by secondary users after training was variable, indicating the need for standardized kits and additional training [96].

Serological diagnosis using ELISA has been explored for detection of antibodies against fimbrial antigens and extracellular proteases [13, 14, 15, 16, 74]. Pilus ELISA and anamnestic tests can identify flocks with recent exposure, but cross-reactions with other bacteria limit specificity [57, 74]. Serology is not routinely used for individual diagnosis but may support epidemiological studies [13, 15].

Advanced molecular typing methods, including multilocus sequence typing (MLST), multiple-locus variable number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA), and whole-genome sequencing, provide high-resolution epidemiological data [17, 31, 97]. MLVA from swab DNA without culture is feasible and can describe strain diversity within flocks [17]. MLST schemes have revealed that UK isolates form distinct clades within the global population [97].

Diagnostic Decision Tree

The following Mermaid diagram summarizes a recommended diagnostic workflow for ovine footrot at the flock level.

flowchart TD
    A[Flock with lameness or foot lesions] --> B{Clinical scoring of all sheep}
    B --> C["Score 0-1: No or mild interdigital dermatitis"]
    B --> D["Score 2-5: Moderate to severe underrunning"]
    C --> E["Risk-based sampling: pool 5 interdigital swabs from high-risk sheep"]
    D --> F["Sample all affected feet; pool per flock"]
    E --> G[rtPCR for D. nodosus 16S rRNA and aprV2/B2]
    F --> G
    G --> H{Detection result}
    H --> I["Positive for aprV2 (virulent")]
    H --> J["Positive for aprB2 only (benign")]
    H --> K[Negative for D. nodosus]
    I --> L[Confirm with elastase test if ambiguous]
    L --> M[Clinical + environmental assessment]
    M --> N[Diagnose virulent footrot]
    J --> O["Assess lesion progression; if score <3 and stable, diagnose benign"]
    K --> P["Consider other causes: CODD, trauma, foreign body"]
    N --> Q[Implement control/eradication program]
    O --> R["Monitor; no eradication required unless virulence suspected"]

Control and Treatment

Control of ovine footrot requires an integrated approach combining treatment of affected animals, vaccination, biosecurity, and environmental management [1, 133].

Treatment of Individual Sheep

Treatment options include careful hoof trimming to remove loose undermined horn, topical disinfectants, systemic antimicrobials, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [1, 18, 126]. Parenteral antibiotics such as gamithromycin, tulathromycin, and long-acting amoxicillin have shown efficacy in eliminating D. nodosus from infected feet [72, 95, 126]. However, antimicrobial use must be judicious to minimize resistance development [67, 93]. Topical treatments include footbathing with disinfectants such as zinc sulfate, copper sulfate, or formaldehyde, although these substances raise environmental and health concerns [59, 82, 137]. Alternative disinfectants such as a commercial biocide (Desintec) have shown comparable efficacy to formaldehyde in ex vivo assays [82]. A novel antibiotic-free hoof spray (Intra Repiderma) applied three times within a week eliminated virulent D. nodosus from flocks within 1-10 weeks, offering a practical alternative for small flocks [18].

Vaccination

Vaccination is a key component of control programs. Fimbrial-based vaccines induce serogroup-specific immunity and can reduce disease prevalence and severity [15, 100, 117]. Outbreak-specific monovalent or bivalent vaccines formulated based on serogroup identification from lesion swabs have been used successfully to eradicate virulent footrot from individual flocks [75, 117]. Multivalent vaccines may suffer from antigenic competition, reducing efficacy against individual serogroups [149]. Adjuvant selection influences antibody responses; oil-based adjuvants generally induce stronger and longer-lasting immunity than aluminum hydroxide [55]. Vaccination combined with other measures (e.g., footbathing, culling) can achieve eradication even in endemic areas [100, 117].

Biosecurity and Environmental Management

Prevention of introduction and spread relies on strict biosecurity. Quarantine of new arrivals, testing for D. nodosus before introduction, and avoiding co-grazing with infected sheep or cattle are essential [1, 72, 115]. Environmental persistence of D. nodosus in soil for over 30 days means that pasture rest periods should exceed this duration [27]. Footbaths at farm entrances and between groups can reduce transmission [67, 82]. Breeding for resistance to footrot, using hoof lesion scoring as a selection criterion, is a long-term strategy [129].

Eradication Strategies

Eradication of virulent footrot from a flock is achievable but requires a sustained, multifaceted approach. Successful programs have been implemented in Australia, Switzerland, Norway, and other countries [1, 72, 92, 110].

Key Elements of Eradication

1. Diagnosis and surveillance: Flock-level screening using pooled rtPCR to identify all infected animals, including subclinical carriers [12, 72].
2. Treatment and culling: Systemic antimicrobial treatment of all positive sheep, combined with hoof trimming and topical therapy. Chronically affected or non-responsive animals should be culled [1, 72].
3. Vaccination: Use of serogroup-specific vaccines tailored to the strains present in the flock [75, 117].
4. Biosecurity: Prevent reintroduction through quarantine, testing of purchased stock, and control of shared grazing [72, 115].
5. Environmental measures: Rest pastures for at least 4 weeks, improve drainage, and avoid overstocking [27, 146].
6. Monitoring: Post-eradication testing at intervals to confirm freedom from infection [72].

In Switzerland, a national eradication program based on PCR testing and footbathing is planned, with studies showing that clinically footrot-free flocks can be achieved through various treatment strategies, including whole-flock macrolide treatment [72]. In Norway, an outbreak of virulent footrot caused by a single introduced strain was contained through a combination of culling, movement restrictions, and vaccination [92, 110]. Mathematical modeling has been used to predict the spread and impact of control measures [28, 110].

Challenges

Eradication is complicated by the existence of subclinical carriers, environmental persistence, and the potential for wildlife reservoirs [27, 69, 84]. Poor hoof conformation (e.g., wall overgrowth, sole and heel defects) is associated with higher D. nodosus loads and may predispose sheep to subclinical carriage [69]. Breed susceptibility also plays a role; for example, Romney sheep have lower risk of infection compared to Swifter or German Merino breeds [73]. Farmer education and awareness are critical for sustained success [19].

References

[1] Zanolari P, Dürr S, Jores J, et al. Ovine footrot: A review of current knowledge. The Veterinary Journal. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5d8c9f9bef69c6b929f8d5f3fbae33fdc7a2133c

[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] Mcpherson A, Dhungyel O, Whittington R. Evaluation of Genotypic and Phenotypic Protease Virulence Tests for Dichelobacter nodosus Infection in Sheep. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2017. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0e1f616b90155d44c44597a4d858901bd54b858c

[4] 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

[5] 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

[6] 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

[7] Cheetham BF, Tanjung LR, Sutherland M, et al. Improved diagnosis of virulent ovine footrot using the intA gene. Veterinary Microbiology. 2006. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/503ff2ef2a88d46edf0b9af5ee5778d23d49e130

[8] Katz ME, Howarth P, Yong WK, et al. Identification of three gene regions associated with virulence in Dichelobacter nodosus, the causative agent of ovine footrot. Journal of General Microbiology. 1991. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/19612c06b3b592290406149ed87bf865effeea94

[9] Collins A, Bowring B. Amplification of acidic protease virulence gene (aprV2) in samples from footrot lesions did not help in diagnosis of clinical virulent footrot in affected sheep flocks in New South Wales. Australian Veterinary Journal. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cabdecc72b92d95c3cfd68ed7329cddadcd6e82d

[10] Best N, Zanandrez L, Gwoźdź J, et al. Assessment of a rtPCR for the detection of virulent and benign Dichelobacter nodosus, the causative agent of ovine footrot, in Australia. BMC Veterinary Research. 2018. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f64af7ab84854bbaa4eaa62624566f817bd8c471

[11] Dhungyel O, Hill A, Dhand N, et al. Comparative study of the commonly used virulence tests for laboratory diagnosis of ovine footrot caused by Dichelobacter nodosus in Australia. Veterinary Microbiology. 2013. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9a969b93e1d6e889496ed9d0f7c26076b63eeb92

[12] Frosth S, König U, Nyman A, et al. Sample pooling for real-time PCR detection and virulence determination of the footrot pathogen Dichelobacter nodosus. Veterinary Research Communications. 2017. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6bd2c831ee06e85ea229dfc5ade7dafc7c6c0f20

[13] Whittington R. Further observations on the primary and anamnestic humoral responses to Dichelobacter nodosus in sheep in relation to the diagnosis of footrot. Research in Veterinary Science. 1996. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/61895d2b3fc1bd6a762229580d2190b251c5037e

[14] Whittington R, Egerton J. Application of ELISA to the serological diagnosis of virulent ovine footrot. Veterinary Microbiology. 1994. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fc6cd1370d9f4ab4fe3b0d91a64c21d44ab163a7

[15] Dhungyel O, Whittington R, Ghimire S, et al. Pilus ELISA and an anamnestic test for the diagnosis of virulent ovine footrot and its application in a disease control program in Nepal. Veterinary Microbiology. 2001. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b926f263fd7eb9fae90872cb2306cb03d015c17c

[16] Whittington R, Saunders V, Moses E. Antigens for serological diagnosis of ovine footrot. Veterinary Microbiology. 1997. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/acfd123de1b7b1812bf5cad815a431dfaaec733a

[17] Giebel K, Green L, Purdy K. A Pilot Study to Investigate the Feasibility of a Multiple Locus Variable Number Tandem Repeat Analysis to Understand the Epidemiology of Dichelobacter nodosus in Ovine Footrot. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticsch

[18] 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

[19] Thompson G, Larsen J, Vizard A. Effectiveness of small workshops for improving farmers' knowledge about ovine footrot. Australian Veterinary Journal. 1999. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5316e4fbb02531d6a6730230687ddd063eb0cdeb

[20] Moore L, Wassink G, Green LE, et al. The detection and characterisation of Dichelobacter nodosus from cases of ovine footrot in England and Wales. Veterinary Microbiology. 2005. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a75c2068cf9d58f1f1eedd46ff30bfb58205bdc4

[21] Rood J, Howarth P, Haring V, et al. Comparison of gene probe and conventional methods for the differentiation of ovine footrot isolates of Dichelobacter nodosus. Veterinary Microbiology. 1996. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/abef7a188b82125b478f5efa88c26f111de07a21

[22] Benito A, Anía S, Ramo M, et al. Molecular Diagnosis of Footrot and Contagious Ovine Digital Dermatitis in Small Ruminants in the Iberian Peninsula. Animals. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7bbf3c21ac05897a1c0900f0dc47440b0fddf581

[23] Kuhnert P, Hidber T. Detection of viable Dichelobacter nodosus by real-time PCR using PMAxx™ v1. protocols.io. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/84fa64c72e78c3aea98cd9d8b016fb297b731247

[24] Liu D, Yong WK. Improved laboratory diagnosis of ovine footrot: an update. The Veterinary Journal. 1997. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/252142f5fa1bb34bd4b7dfde08461cb50d0a2d88

[25] Vijayalakshmi S, Sreenivasulu D, Raniprameela D, et al. Phenotypic Virulence Characterization of Dichelobacter nodosus from the Cases of Ovine Footrot in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states of India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6415f8ca95e7a8421bc171e8b03341fe9ba4c49f

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.