Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae and Swine Erysipelas: Arthritis and Diamond Skin Lesions

Etiology and Taxonomy

Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae is a Gram-positive, facultatively anaerobic, non-spore-forming, rod-shaped bacterium belonging to the family Erysipelotrichaceae. The organism is slender, measuring 0.2 to 0.4 micrometers in width and 0.8 to 2.5 micrometers in length, and exhibits a tendency to form long filaments in older cultures. It is catalase-negative, oxidase-negative, and produces hydrogen sulfide in triple sugar iron agar. The bacterium possesses a thick peptidoglycan cell wall and expresses a surface protective antigen (Spa) that is critical for virulence and serotype classification [1]. At least 28 serotypes (1a, 1b, 2 through 23, and type N) have been identified based on the heat-stable somatic antigen, with serotypes 1a and 2 being the most frequently isolated from clinical cases of swine erysipelas [2, 3].

Epidemiology and Host Range

E. rhusiopathiae is a ubiquitous environmental organism capable of surviving for extended periods in soil, water, and organic matter. Swine serve as the primary reservoir, with carrier pigs harboring the bacterium in tonsillar tissue and lymphoid organs. The organism is shed in feces, urine, saliva, and nasal secretions, facilitating horizontal transmission via the fecal-oral route. Contaminated feed, water, and bedding are common sources of infection. The disease is most prevalent in growing pigs aged 3 to 12 months, although all age groups are susceptible. Stressors such as overcrowding, poor ventilation, sudden dietary changes, and concurrent infections predispose pigs to clinical disease [4, 5].

The bacterium has a broad host range, infecting mammals, birds, and fish. In sheep, it causes polyarthritis and septicemia; in turkeys and chickens, it is associated with erysipelas outbreaks; and in marine mammals, it can cause fatal septicemia. The organism is also a zoonotic pathogen, causing erysipeloid in humans, typically through occupational exposure to infected animals or animal products [6].

Clinical Signs: Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Forms

Swine erysipelas manifests in three clinical forms: acute, subacute, and chronic. The acute form is characterized by sudden onset of fever (40.5 to 42.0 degrees Celsius), depression, anorexia, and reluctance to move. Within 24 to 48 hours, pathognomonic diamond-shaped skin lesions (urticaria) appear on the skin of the back, flanks, neck, and abdomen. These lesions are raised, erythematous, and rhomboid, measuring 1 to 5 centimeters in diameter. They may coalesce to form larger plaques and can become hemorrhagic or necrotic in severe cases. The subacute form presents with milder fever and fewer skin lesions, often resolving without intervention. The chronic form develops weeks to months after the acute phase and is dominated by arthritis and vegetative endocarditis. Arthritis is the most common chronic sequela, affecting the carpal, tarsal, and stifle joints, leading to lameness, joint swelling, and stiffness [4, 5, 7].

Pathogenesis of Arthritis

The pathogenesis of E. rhusiopathiae arthritis is multifactorial, involving bacterial colonization, immune complex deposition, and hypersensitivity reactions. Following systemic infection, the bacterium localizes to synovial membranes, where it persists and triggers an inflammatory cascade. Experimental studies have demonstrated that intravenous inoculation of E. rhusiopathiae produces arthritis in a high proportion of pigs, with clinical signs appearing within 7 to 14 days post-inoculation [8, 9]. The organism can be recovered from synovial fluid and synovial tissue during the acute phase, but its persistence in the joint is not required for chronic inflammation to develop [10].

Hypersensitivity mechanisms play a central role in the chronicity of arthritis. Free et al. demonstrated that pigs sensitized with viable or nonviable E. rhusiopathiae antigens developed arthritis upon subsequent challenge, suggesting a type III (immune complex-mediated) or type IV (cell-mediated) hypersensitivity reaction [11, 12]. Passive transfer of immune serum to naive recipients conferred hypersensitivity, indicating that humoral immunity contributes to joint pathology [13]. Complement activation is also implicated, as Timoney reported elevated concentrations of hemolytic complement and the third component of complement (C3) in synovial fluid from arthritic joints compared to normal joints [14]. However, the absence of C3 conversion products suggested that immune complex deposition plays a less dominant role than in human rheumatoid arthritis.

Lysosomal enzyme release contributes to cartilage degradation and joint destruction. Timoney measured significantly elevated levels of lysozyme, acid phosphatase (ACP), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in synovial fluids from arthritic joints [15]. The disproportionate increase in LDH relative to ACP indicated that cell death, rather than selective lysosomal extrusion during phagocytosis, was the primary mechanism of enzyme release. Histopathologically, chronic arthritis is characterized by synovial hyperplasia, villous hypertrophy, infiltration of lymphocytes and plasma cells, pannus formation, and erosion of articular cartilage [16, 17]. Immunohistochemical studies have identified immunoglobulin deposits and complement components within the synovial membrane, supporting an immune-mediated pathogenesis [18].

Diamond Skin Lesions: Pathophysiology

The diamond-shaped skin lesions characteristic of acute swine erysipelas result from bacterial embolization and thrombosis of dermal capillaries. E. rhusiopathiae adheres to and activates vascular endothelial cells, leading to platelet aggregation, fibrin deposition, and ischemic necrosis of the overlying epidermis. The rhomboid shape is thought to reflect the distribution of dermal blood vessels and the pattern of ischemic injury. Histologically, the lesions show edema, hemorrhage, and neutrophilic infiltration in the dermis, with thrombosis of small blood vessels. In severe cases, the lesions become necrotic and slough, leaving ulcerated areas that may become secondarily infected [4, 5].

Diagnostic Approaches

Clinical and Gross Pathologic Diagnosis

Presumptive diagnosis of swine erysipelas is based on the presence of characteristic diamond skin lesions, fever, and acute lameness in growing pigs. Chronic arthritis is suspected in pigs with swollen, stiff joints and a history of prior acute disease. At necropsy, acute cases show cutaneous erythema, petechial hemorrhages on serosal surfaces, and splenomegaly. Chronic cases exhibit proliferative synovitis, joint effusion, and vegetative lesions on the mitral and aortic valves [4, 5, 7].

Bacteriological Isolation and Identification

Definitive diagnosis requires isolation of E. rhusiopathiae from blood, synovial fluid, joint tissue, or internal organs. Samples are cultured on blood agar or selective media containing antibiotics such as kanamycin, vancomycin, and nalidixic acid. Colonies appear as small, transparent, alpha-hemolytic after 24 to 48 hours of incubation at 37 degrees Celsius. The organism is confirmed by Gram stain, catalase negativity, and hydrogen sulfide production. Biochemical identification can be performed using commercial kits [19, 40].

Serological Assays

Serological testing is useful for herd-level screening and confirmation of chronic infections. The tube agglutination test (TAT) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are commonly employed. Eamens et al. compared inoculation regimes for experimental production of swine erysipelas arthritis and evaluated serological responses using a gel diffusion precipitin test and ELISA [20]. The ELISA demonstrated higher sensitivity for detecting antibodies in chronically infected pigs. Chin et al. developed a serological assay using nitrocellulose particles impregnated with an immunodominant 65 kDa antigen, which improved specificity [21]. Slide agglutination and latex agglutination tests have been developed for rapid diagnosis of arthritis, offering field-deployable options [22].

Molecular Diagnostics

Real-time PCR assays provide rapid and sensitive detection of E. rhusiopathiae DNA from clinical samples. Akase et al. developed a real-time PCR assay targeting the 16S rRNA gene, which could detect the organism directly from synovial fluid and joint tissue of pigs with chronic arthritis [23]. This method is particularly valuable for detecting nonviable organisms in chronic lesions where culture may be negative. High-throughput sequencing and genome-wide approaches have identified virulence genes, including the tagF homolog involved in cell wall biosynthesis, which can serve as targets for molecular typing and vaccine development [24].

Diagnostic Workflow

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a diagnostic decision tree for swine erysipelas arthritis and diamond skin lesions.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical Signs: Fever, Diamond Skin Lesions, Lameness], > B{Acute or Chronic?}
    B, >|Acute| C[Blood Culture & PCR]
    B, >|Chronic| D[Joint Swelling, Stiffness]
    D, > E[Synovial Fluid Aspiration]
    E, > F[Bacterial Culture & Real-Time PCR]
    C, > G[Positive Culture or PCR]
    F, > G
    G, > H[Confirm E. rhusiopathiae]
    H, > I[Serotyping & SpaA Genotyping]
    I, > J[Treatment & Vaccination Strategy]

Treatment and Antimicrobial Therapy

E. rhusiopathiae is highly susceptible to beta-lactam antibiotics, particularly penicillin G, which is the treatment of choice for acute cases. Amoxicillin, ampicillin, and ceftiofur are also effective. Early administration of penicillin reduces mortality and prevents progression to chronic arthritis. Tetracyclines and macrolides have variable efficacy, and resistance has been reported. Supportive care includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to reduce fever and joint inflammation. In chronic arthritis cases, antimicrobial therapy is less effective due to the immune-mediated nature of the joint pathology, and treatment focuses on managing pain and secondary infections [4, 5].

Vaccination and Control

Vaccination is the cornerstone of swine erysipelas control. Both inactivated bacterins and modified live vaccines are available. Bacterins provide protection against acute disease but may not prevent arthritis in all cases. Wood et al. demonstrated that vaccination with serotype 2 bacterin protected swine against challenge with serotypes 1 and 2 but not serotype 10, indicating serotype-specific immunity [25]. Modified live vaccines, such as the Koganei 65-0.15 strain, have been used in Japan but are associated with residual virulence, including the induction of arthritis and endocarditis [24]. Shimoji et al. developed a safer live vaccine candidate by deleting the tagF homolog, which conferred protection in pigs without causing clinical disease [24]. Oral vaccination has been explored as a practical alternative for large herds, with field experiences in Croatia demonstrating efficacy [26].

Control measures include biosecurity protocols to prevent introduction of the organism, all-in/all-out management, and reduction of environmental stressors. Carrier pigs should be identified and removed from the herd. Vaccination of breeding stock and growing pigs at 8 to 12 weeks of age, with a booster at 16 to 18 weeks, is recommended. In herds with endemic arthritis, vaccination of sows to provide passive immunity to piglets may reduce the incidence of chronic disease [4, 5, 27].

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for acute swine erysipelas includes African swine fever, classical swine fever, porcine dermatitis and nephropathy syndrome, and acute salmonellosis. Diamond skin lesions are pathognomonic but may be confused with urticaria caused by other agents. Chronic arthritis must be differentiated from Mycoplasma hyosynoviae infection, Streptococcus suis arthritis, and Haemophilus parasuis (Glasser's disease). Laboratory confirmation is essential for accurate diagnosis [4, 5].

Conclusion

Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae remains a significant pathogen in swine production worldwide, causing acute septicemia with characteristic diamond skin lesions and chronic arthritis that leads to economic losses due to reduced growth performance, culling, and carcass condemnation. The pathogenesis of arthritis involves a complex interplay of bacterial persistence, immune complex deposition, complement activation, and lysosomal enzyme release. Advances in molecular diagnostics, including real-time PCR and genome sequencing, have improved detection and characterization of the organism. Vaccination remains the most effective control strategy, although serotype-specific immunity and residual virulence of live vaccines present ongoing challenges. Continued research into virulence mechanisms and vaccine development is essential for improved management of this disease.

References

[1] Imada Y, Goji N, Ishikawa H, et al. Truncated Surface Protective Antigen (SpaA) of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Serotype 1a Elicits Protection against Challenge with Serotypes 1a and 2b in Pigs. Infection and Immunity. 1999. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7c0d8a73f556334173e01b6d19d829acb19094ec

[2] Imada Y, Takase A, Kikuma R, et al. Serotyping of 800 Strains of Erysipelothrix Isolated from Pigs Affected with Erysipelas and Discrimination of Attenuated Live Vaccine Strain by Genotyping. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2004. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48f64edd351527261abf9e1a50459df6adc0b9c1

[3] Cross GM, Claxton PD. Serological classification of Australian strains of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae isolated from pigs, sheep, turkeys and man. Australian Veterinary Journal. 1979. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c25a043e2ce06378fd1a9c99f0c4793a6a93db56

[4] Habte D, Tamir D, Tilahun T. Swine Erysipelas: Its Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, Control, Preventive Measures and Comprehensive Review. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/40f4a15d67b6944a7b0499b5f2732748a3d9e0e4

[5] Habte D, Tamir D. Swine Erysipelas; Its Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Control and Preventive Measures, Comprehensive Review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology & Toxicology. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cba8a120e4d5384b98a62799125e7e9e9fc7abb6

[6] Ugochukwu I, Samuel F, Orakpoghenor O, et al. Erysipelas, the opportunistic zoonotic disease: history, epidemiology, pathology, and diagnosis, a review. Comparative Clinical Pathology. 2018. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/229bdf4a333eab8d7676f568aa5ad85403751cfb

[7] Shuman RD. Swine erysipelas and arthritis. Laboratory Investigation. 1959. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78f9d1dd073bb1252d87fe0259392105c34dc7e4

[8] Eamens GJ, Nicholls PJ. Comparison of inoculation regimes for the experimental production of swine erysipelas arthritis: I Clinical, pathological and bacteriological findings. 1989. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5b7a47ff06143e8662e93d6553a29cad3ba03faf

[9] Sikes D, Neher GM, Doyle LP. Studies on arthritis in swine. I. Experimental erysipelas and chronic arthritis in swine. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1955. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/03b951f2471a44ed22b9760190b4865fc86f5399

[10] Cohrs P, Schulz L. Pathogenesis of spontaneous and experimental swine erysipelas arthritis. 1960. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7bf39b4eb039da32e892ac80df644150b31ad687

[11] Free MJ, Segre D, Berman DT. Hypersensitivity in erysipelas arthritis of swine. I. Hypersensitization of swine with viable and nonviable Erysipelothrix. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1964. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/31056f435a1deb3790b100e1109f5d3b2db45dd6

[12] Free MJ, Berman DT. Hypersensitivity in erysipelas arthritis of swine. II. Hypersensitization of swine with sterile Erysipelothrix antigens. 1964. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e370bfbfd52a4f46bca61826f5a01762819db28

[13] Free MJ, Berman DT. Hypersensitivity in erysipelas arthritis of swine. III. Passive transfer of hypersensitivity with immune serum. 1964. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4554bb6d1ca432a008cd3d642d6ddd504ad27158

[14] Timoney J. Erysipelas arthritis in swine: concentrations of complement and third component of complement in synovia. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1976. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0c55b33d06fa8655b15a65e941a72126bdfb90a3

[15] Timoney JF. Erysipelas arthritis in swine: lysosomal enzyme levels in synovial fluids. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1976. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/25aca242979605ff77b75492353baef384fc275f

[16] Doyle LP, Neher GM, Sikes D. The pathology of chronic arthritis following natural and experimental erysipelothrix infection of swine. American Journal of Pathology. 1956. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0f66a9f6edb9a4ea7bfe5a9741352b957207e258

[17] Winkelmann J, Trautwein G, Leibold W, et al. Enzyme, enzyme-histochemical and immunohistological studies in chronic erysipelas polyarthritis of swine. Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie. 1978. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6544eecb3b573efb2db09d941c4dc034c2dd16e1

[18] Winkelmann J, Trautwein G, Muller-Peddinghaus R, et al. Immunopathologic aspects of chronic erysipelas polyarthritis in swine. Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie. 1983. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e7e0b1517c56486df8f8128d764d14574c8869d2

[19] Guo CL. Isolation and Identification of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae from Arthritis Swine. 2012. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b7ed18e64584fb7dd0071448c2fbaf352f7440b6

[20] Eamens GJ, Chin JC, Nicholls PJ. Comparison of inoculation regimes for the experimental production of swine erysipelas arthritis. II. Serological findings in a gel diffusion precipitin test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. 1989. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e9ecb82658b2af04f4c264bfa92ab4a765280167

[21] Chin J, Turner B, Eamens G. Serological assay for swine erysipelas using nitrocellulose particles impregnated with an immunodominant 65 kDa antigen from Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae. Veterinary Microbiology. 1992. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1fcf6e565e204a7b1175021582d60ae06102524b

[22] Kushima S, Kojima Y, Takahashi S, et al. Slide Agglutination and Latex Agglutination Tests for Rapid Diagnosis of Swine Erysipelas Arthritis. 2002. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fec555cecd24e0676a195e120421fc896b91b6cb

[23] Akase S, Miyao Y, Sohmura Y, et al. Real-Time PCR Assay for Rapid Detection of Genus Erysipelothrix DNA from Chronic Arthritis of Erysipelas in Swine. 2007. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf8d35e2536b1d678e8e9a7fe4794eac5c405d73

[24] Shimoji Y, Ogawa Y, Tsukio M, et al. Genome-Wide Identification of Virulence Genes in Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae: Use of a Mutant Deficient in a tagF Homolog as a Safe Oral Vaccine against Swine Erysipelas. Infection and Immunity. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/89f3e2d17fec6680607fa7904c465d51aa33ae98

[25] Wood RL, Booth GD, Cutlip RC. Susceptibility of vaccinated swine and mice to generalized infection with specific serotypes of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1981. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a9c1463062294cd43ebb7cde93ec4ebd0cb12c1

[26] Hoffmann CR, Bilkei G. Oral vaccination against swine erysipelas-field experiences in Croatia. DTW. Deutsche tierarztliche Wochenschrift. 2006. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/676f0ed2177e3682897ae44dc4a3296fa41dd96f

[27] Engstrom F. Vaccination against Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae in outdoor swine production. 2010. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/96e9bfa7e2135bebf39015a5335fef1b73852082

[28] Uchiyama M, Shimazaki Y, Isshiki Y, et al. Pathogenic characterization of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Met-203 type SpaA strains from chronic and subacute swine erysipelas in Japan. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2016. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/37805a8d3b570678ef6b62ff3cb0fabaeb5ddcd4

[29] Neher GM, Swenson CB, Doyle LP, et al. The incidence of arthritis in swine following vaccination for swine erysipelas. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1958. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65029c65f9131c9de55e0ccbdcc980e236eabbe4

[30] Grabell I, Hansen H, Olsson S, et al. Discospondylitis and Arthritis in Swine Erysipelas. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. 1962. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b2a24d1de9d075c617b3f2eddce703dac89bffa0

[31] Free MJ. Effects of vaccination on the development of arthritis in swine with erysipelas: clinical, hematologic, and gross pathologic observations. 1964. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5f32bec1e0ab6d81f2b5bf0a092a25ae5cfc979c

[32] Free MJ. Effects of vaccination on the development of arthritis in swine with erysipelas: bacteriologic, immunologic, serum protein, and histopathologic observations. 1964. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/32ca26a5a6f0337159cf7f7e0122540ef72b4a2d

[33] Neher GM, Swenson CB. Does vaccination against swine erysipelas afford protection against arthritis. 1959. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/15e133a2c1f9794ebf69945ea3e3551a5436ce59

[34] Julian R, Ditchfield J. An Isolated Case Of Swine Erysipelas In An Institutional Herd Report Of A Case. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Science. 1959. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9f169669980e4635c5701da13aa3493b1111f061

[35] Sikes D, Fletcher OJ, Jones TJ. Agglutinating factor eluted from the erythrocytes of swine with rheumatoid arthritis. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1970. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac8ebbfb28e4ff4939829922cc7c98ba87ff4661

[36] Carter J, Neher GM. Changes in erythrocyte sedimentation rate and serum proteins during experimentally produced erysipelatous arthritis in swine. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine. 1968. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b2f720f6a186199099383286ba16a9c8d678f29a

[37] Gertenbach W, Bilkei G. Erysipelas: Potential involvement in urogenital disease of the sow. Journal of Swine Health and Production. 2002. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/956f911f2775aa95f769d89612b827f63120365d

[38] Camillo L. Efeito da imunizacao com vacina do antigeno recombinante de superficie SpaA de Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae: modelo murino. 2015. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b86d89a25b550893f136bce3f42bdf9b948e61bb

[39] Ehrlich J. Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae infection in man; report of a case with cutaneous bullae, in which cure was achieved with penicillin. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1946. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5323f559