Ovine Footrot: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Control in Sheep Flocks

Introduction

Ovine footrot is a contagious, polymicrobial disease of the interdigital skin and hoof horn that causes significant economic and welfare losses in sheep flocks worldwide [1]. The condition is characterized by exudative inflammation, under-running of the hoof horn, and lameness [2, 3]. Footrot is globally distributed and has been reported in temperate, tropical, and alpine environments, affecting both domesticated sheep and free-ranging wild ungulates [4, 5, 6]. The disease complex includes both virulent and benign forms, along with the related condition contagious ovine digital dermatitis (CODD) [7, 8]. Accurate diagnosis and integrated control strategies are essential for flock-level management and eradication [9, 10].

Etiology

Primary Pathogen: Dichelobacter nodosus

The obligate anaerobic Gram-negative rod Dichelobacter nodosus is the essential causal agent of ovine footrot [11, 12]. Without this pathogen, typical footrot lesions do not develop, even in the presence of other bacteria [13, 14]. D. nodosus is classified into 10 serogroups (A, I and M) based on fimbrial antigenic variation, and serogroup distribution varies geographically and within flocks [15, 16]. Virulence is determined largely by the protease type: virulent strains carry the aprV2 gene encoding a thermostable acidic protease, whereas benign strains carry the aprB2 gene encoding a thermolabile basic protease [17, 18]. The production of elastase is a key phenotypic marker for virulence, and the elastase test remains a useful predictor for virulent footrot diagnosis [19]. The bacterium also expresses type IV fimbriae that mediate twitching motility, which is essential for colonization and invasion of the interdigital epithelium [20].

Synergistic Bacteria: Fusobacterium necrophorum and Treponema spp.

Fusobacterium necrophorum, an anaerobic Gram-negative rod, acts as a synergistic opportunist. It produces a leukotoxin that impairs local host immune defenses and contributes to tissue necrosis [21, 22]. High loads of F. necrophorum are associated with the initiation and severity of footrot lesions [23, 24]. Treponema species, particularly phylotypes similar to those found in bovine digital dermatitis, are implicated in the separate but clinically overlapping disease CODD, which is characterized by severe, painful lesions at the coronary band and can occur concurrently with footrot [25, 26]. Metagenomic studies have revealed a complex dysbiotic microbiome in footrot lesions, with reduced diversity and overgrowth of D. nodosus, F. necrophorum, and Treponema spp. [27, 28].

Other Bacterial Participants

The ovine interdigital skin normally harbors a diverse microbial community, but during footrot a distinct bacterial dysbiosis occurs [29]. Other frequently detected organisms include Prevotella, Porphyromonas, and Bacteroides species, which likely contribute to the anaerobic microenvironment and proteolytic damage [30]. However, these taxa are not considered primary pathogens. In alpine ibex and other wild ruminants, D. nodosus carriage has been documented, indicating potential wildlife reservoirs [31, 32].

Pathogenesis

Transmission occurs via direct contact with infected feet or contaminated pasture, with D. nodosus surviving in soil under favorable moisture and temperature conditions [33]. The bacterium adheres to and invades the interdigital epidermis through fimbriae-mediated attachment, followed by protease-mediated degradation of keratin and extracellular matrix [34, 35]. Within 24 to 48 hours, focal interdigital dermatitis develops, characterized by erythema, exudation, and superficial separation of the horn [36]. As the infection progresses, the bacterium undermines the hoof horn, separating it from the underlying dermis, leading to the classic under-run lesion [37].

Both the bacterial load and the host immune response influence lesion severity. Elevated pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α are observed in acute footrot, along with acute phase proteins including haptoglobin and serum amyloid A [38]. Toll-like receptor upregulation in the interdigital skin indicates a strong innate immune recognition of bacterial components [39]. However, natural protective immunity after infection is inconsistent, and animals can be reinfected by the same or different serogroups [40, 41].

Clinical Signs and Scoring

Clinical presentation ranges from mild interdigital dermatitis (benign footrot) to severe, virulent footrot with extensive horn separation, purulent exudate, and a characteristic foul odor [42]. Virulent footrot causes under-running of the sole and wall, often extending to the coronary band, leading to severe lameness [43, 44]. Benign footrot is usually limited to mild interdigital inflammation with minimal horn separation. CODD presents as a distinct entity with acute, painful lesions originating at the coronary band, leading to complete horn loss (slipper foot) [45].

Standardized lesion scoring systems (e.g., 0-5 scale) are used for research and field assessments. Inter-observer agreement is generally moderate to good, emphasizing the need for trained assessors [46]. Lameness scoring using visual gait assessment or automated systems is also applied [47].

Diagnosis

Clinical Diagnosis

Clinical diagnosis is based on inspection of the interdigital space and hoof horn after cleaning. Under-running, odor, and exudation are typical. Differentiation from CODD, foot abscess, and foreign body penetration is necessary [48]. The presence of D. nodosus can be confirmed by laboratory methods.

Molecular Diagnostics

Real-time polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR) assays targeting the 16S rRNA gene and the virulence genes aprV2 and aprB2 are the gold standard for detection and virulence determination [49, 50]. Pooled sampling from multiple feet within a flock can reduce costs without sacrificing sensitivity [51]. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays have been developed for field use, providing rapid detection without thermocyclers [52, 53]. Direct PCR from lesion swabs can also be used for serogroup identification, enabling outbreak-specific vaccination [54].

Culture and Phenotyping

Culture of D. nodosus requires anaerobic conditions and selective media. The elastase test, measuring protease activity on elastin agar, differentiates virulent from benign strains [19]. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has been applied to identify immunodominant outer membrane proteins of F. necrophorum [55].

Serogrouping

Multiplex PCR-based serogrouping allows identification of the predominant serogroup(s) in a flock, which is critical for autogenous vaccine formulation [56, 57]. Serogroup diversity within a flock can be high, and strains can be introduced through purchased animals [58].

The following table summarizes the principal diagnostic methods:

Control and Eradication

Antimicrobial Therapy

Parenteral antibiotics (e.g., tilmicosin, oxytetracycline) combined with hoof trimming are effective in individual animals, but whole-flock metaphylactic treatment may fail to eliminate infection [59, 60]. Antimicrobial resistance considerations are increasingly important, and treatment should be guided by susceptibility testing where possible [61].

Footbathing

Footbaths containing zinc sulfate, formalin, or glutaraldehyde are widely used to reduce bacterial load on feet [62]. Glutaraldehyde-based footbaths can reduce D. nodosus prevalence but may also affect the interdigital skin microbiome and promote antimicrobial resistance in commensal bacteria [63]. Frequent footbathing with formalin is associated with granulomas and shelly hoof, so protocols must be balanced [64]. The efficacy of footbathing as a sole control measure is limited unless combined with other interventions [65].

Vaccination

Commercial and autogenous vaccines based on killed D. nodosus cells enriched for fimbrial antigens provide serogroup-specific protection. Vaccination reduces lesion severity and prevalence but does not prevent infection entirely [66, 67]. Outbreak-specific monovalent or bivalent vaccines can aid in eradication when matched to the circulating serogroup [68]. The antibody response is dose- and lesion severity-dependent, and booster strategies are required for anamnestic immunity [69].

Genetic Selection

Genetic variation in susceptibility to footrot has been demonstrated. Heritability estimates for footrot resistance are moderate, and genome-wide association studies have identified quantitative trait loci on chromosomes 2 and others [70, 71, 72]. Breeding values for susceptibility have been developed, and selective breeding can reduce flock prevalence over time [73]. Marker-assisted selection using MHC-DQA2 haplotypes has been explored [74].

Eradication Programs

Elimination of virulent footrot from a flock is achievable through a combination of rigorous culling, footbathing, vaccination, and biosecurity. The likelihood of success depends on the virulence of the strain and the level of farmer compliance [75]. National programs, such as those in Norway and Switzerland, have demonstrated that systematic surveillance and elimination can reduce disease at the population level [76, 77]. However, re-introduction can occur via asymptomatically infected carrier animals or contaminated environments [78].

The following Mermaid diagram outlines a decision tree for control:

flowchart TD
 A[Flock lameness investigation] --> B[Clinical exam + lesion scoring]
 B --> C{Footrot confirmed?}
 C -->|Yes| D[Sample for rtPCR + serogrouping]
 D --> E{Virulent *D. nodosus*?}
 E -->|Yes| F[Implement vaccination + footbathing]
 E -->|No| G[Manage as benign footrot with footbathing]
 F --> H[Monitor lesion scores monthly]
 H --> I{Prevalence declining?}
 I -->|Yes| J[Continue program + biosecurity]
 I -->|No| K[Re-assess serogroups + consider culling carriers]
 J --> L["Goal: eradication"]
 L --> M[Surveillance to prevent re-introduction]
 C -->|No| N["Differentials: CODD, abscess, trauma"]
 N --> O[Appropriate specific treatment]

Conclusion

Ovine footrot is a complex polymicrobial disease driven by Dichelobacter nodosus and facilitated by synergistic bacteria such as Fusobacterium necrophorum. Accurate diagnosis relies on molecular methods that distinguish virulent from benign strains and identify serogroups. Control requires an integrated approach combining strategic footbathing, serogroup-specific vaccination, genetic selection for resistance, and rigorous biosecurity. Eradication is achievable in well-managed flocks but demands sustained effort and surveillance. Ongoing research into host-pathogen interactions, microbiome dynamics, and computational modeling continues to refine control strategies.

References

[1] Prosser NS, Green LE, Green MJ. Role of stability and triangulation-based methods to improve identification of risk factors for lameness in ewes. Prev Vet Med. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41401491/

[2] Gulaydin A, Gulaydin O, Yesilyurt M, et al. Clinical and microbiological evaluation of foot diseases in small ruminants in Siirt province (Türkiye) and its districts. Vet Med (Praha). 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40115533/

[3] Robertson SM, Allworth MB. Footrot in sheep and goats: a case study. Aust Vet J. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39825849/

[4] 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. Aust Vet J. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37794558/

[5] Rasool A, Farooq S, Kumar S, et al. Evidence of novel Treponema phylotypes implicated in contagious ovine digital dermatitis and association of treponemes with major lameness causing foot pathogens. Microb Pathog. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37423496/

[6] Usié A, Leão C, Gaspar D, et al. A metagenomics approach to characterize the footrot microbiome in Merino sheep. Vet Microbiol. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37080086/

[7] El-Deeb W, Abdelghani MA, Alhaider A, et al. Immunological response of lame sheep to clinical interdigital dermatitis and footrot: Procalcitonin, acute phase proteins, and pro-inflammatory cytokines. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36343421/

[8] Marshall HJ, Blanchard AM, Kelly KR, et al. The impact of glutaraldehyde based footbaths on Dichelobacter nodosus prevalence and the antimicrobial resistant community of the ovine interdigital skin. Vet Microbiol. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35809504/

[9] Storms J, Wirth A, Vasiliadis D, et al. Risk factors associated with the infection of sheep with Dichelobacter nodosus. Sci Rep. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35705578/

[10] Walkom SF, Bunter KL, Raadsma HW, et al. Development of breeding values for susceptibility to virulent footrot in sheep: A strategy to accommodate variable disease progression at time of scoring. Animal. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35421686/

[11] Rosander A, Albinsson R, König U, et al. Prevalence of bacterial species associated with ovine footrot and contagious ovine digital dermatitis in Swedish slaughter lambs. Acta Vet Scand. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35264235/

[12] 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. Vet Microbiol. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35074618/

[13] Kavitha M, Kumar NV, Sreedevi B. Standardization of loop-mediated isothermal amplification for detection of D. nodosus and F. necrophorum causing footrot in sheep and goats. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35031870/

[14] 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. Sci Prog. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34904916/

[15] Anaya G, Negro S, Zhou H, et al. Allele/haplotype variation in the MHC-DQA2 gene in Spanish sheep and its association with footrot susceptibility. Res Vet Sci. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34763255/

[16] Staton GJ, Angell JW, Grove-White D, et al. Contagious Ovine Digital Dermatitis: A Novel Bacterial Etiology and Lesion Pathogenesis. Front Vet Sci. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34631855/

[17] Bernhard M, Frosth S, König U. First report on outbreaks of contagious ovine digital dermatitis in Sweden. Acta Vet Scand. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34399828/

[18] Blanchard AM, Staley CE, Shaw L, et al. A Trifecta of New Insights into Ovine Footrot for Infection Drivers, Immune Response, and Host-Pathogen Interactions. Infect Immun. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34227837/

[19] Lewis KE, Green MJ, Witt J, et al. Multiple model triangulation to identify factors associated with lameness in British sheep flocks. Prev Vet Med. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34119859/

[20] Zanolari P, Dürr S, Jores J, et al. Ovine footrot: A review of current knowledge. Vet J. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33840488/

[21] Moore-Jones G, Dürr S, Willisch C, et al. OCCURRENCE OF FOOTROT IN FREE-RANGING ALPINE IBEX (CAPRA IBEX) COLONIES IN SWITZERLAND. J Wildl Dis. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33822150/

[22] Farooq S, Wani SA, Qureshi S, et al. Identification of Immunodominant Outer Membrane Proteins of Fusobacterium necrophorum from Severe Ovine Footrot By MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry. Curr Microbiol. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33638672/

[23] Duncan JS, Angell JW, Richards P, et al. The dysbiosis of ovine foot microbiome during the development and treatment of contagious ovine digital dermatitis. Anim Microbiome. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33597028/

[24] Hoby S, Steiner A, Kuhnert P, et al. Foot health and prevalence of Dichelobacter nodosus in 11 ungulate species at Berne Animal Park. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33140726/

[25] Prosser NS, Monaghan EM, Green LE, et al. Serogroups of Dichelobacter nodosus, the cause of footrot in sheep, are randomly distributed across England. Sci Rep. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33033301/

[26] Tegtmeyer PC, Staton GJ, Evans NJ, et al. First cases of contagious ovine digital dermatitis in Germany. Acta Vet Scand. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32854737/

[27] Davies PL, Blanchard AM, Staley CE, et al. Genomic heterogeneity of Dichelobacter nodosus within and between UK sheep flocks and between age groups within a flock. BMC Microbiol. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32357840/

[28] Kraft AF, Strobel H, Hilke J, et al. The prevalence of Dichelobacter nodosus in clinically footrot-free sheep flocks: a comparative field study on elimination strategies. BMC Vet Res. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31969162/

[29] 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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31917824/

[30] Clifton R, Giebel K, Liu NLBH, et al. Sites of persistence of Fusobacterium necrophorum and Dichelobacter nodosus: a paradigm shift in understanding the epidemiology of footrot in sheep. Sci Rep. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31594981/

[31] McPherson AS, Dhungyel OP, Whittington RJ. The microbiome of the footrot lesion in Merino sheep is characterized by a persistent bacterial dysbiosis. Vet Microbiol. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31500737/

[32] Best N, Rodoni B, Rawlin G, et al. Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for detection of aprV2 positive Dichelobacter nodosus in-field by secondary users. BMC Res Notes. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31439030/

[33] Reeves MC, Prosser NS, Monaghan EM, et al. Footbathing, formalin and foot trimming: The 3Fs associated with granulomas and shelly hoof in sheep. Vet J. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31383417/

[34] Gelasakis AI, Kalogianni AI, Bossis I. Aetiology, Risk Factors, Diagnosis and Control of Foot-Related Lameness in Dairy Sheep. Animals (Basel). 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31370310/

[35] Kuhnert P, Cippà V, Härdi-Landerer MC, et al. Early Infection Dynamics of Dichelobacter nodosus During an Ovine Experimental Footrot In Contact Infection. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31298215/

[36] Härdi-Landerer MC, Stoffel A, Dürr S, et al. [Footbath as treatment of footrot in sheep. Current situation on Swiss sheep farms]. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31145680/

[37] 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 to design targeted disease control measures. Prev Vet Med. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31109750/

[38] Wani SA, Farooq S, Kashoo ZA, 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. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30627862/

[39] Wani SA, Kashoo Z, Farooq S, et al. Draft genome sequence of Dichelobacter nodosus JKS-07 serogroup E from India. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30625417/

[40] Strobel H, Hilke J, Spengler D, et al. [Claw infections in sheep - treatment options in veterinary practice, with special emphasis on ovine footrot treatment. - An update]. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30616280/

[41] Best N, Rodoni B, Rawlin G, et al. The development and deployment of a field-based loop mediated isothermal amplification assay for virulent Dichelobacter nodosus detection on Australian sheep. PLoS One. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30260992/

[42] Allworth MB, Egerton JR. Relationship between the likelihood of footrot elimination from a flock and the virulence of the strain of Dichelobacter nodosus present. Aust Vet J. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30255576/

[43] Allworth MB, Egerton JR. Comparison of footbathing and vaccination to control ovine footrot in an experimentally infected flock. Aust Vet J. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30255574/

[44] Jackson AE. In this issue - October 2018. Aust Vet J. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30255573/

[45] Best N, Zanandrez L, Gwozdz 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 Vet Res. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157841/

[46] Fieseler H, Weck R, Kaiser M, et al. [Detection and assessment of acute and chronic pain in Meat Merino ewes using ethological parameters]. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30142653/

[47] Locher I, Giger L, Frosth S, et al. Potential transmission routes of Dichelobacter nodosus. Vet Microbiol. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29685216/

[48] Farooq S, Wani SA, Hassan MN, et al. The detection and prevalence of leukotoxin gene variant strains of Fusobacterium necrophorum in footrot lesions of sheep in Kashmir, India. Anaerobe. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29596988/

[49] McPherson AS, Dhungyel OP, Whittington RJ. 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. J Clin Microbiol. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29436426/

[50] Best N, Gwozdz J, Suter R, et al. Direct serogrouping of Dichelobacter nodosus from Victorian farms using conventional multiplex polymerase chain reaction. BMC Res Notes. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29415761/

[51] Angell JW, Grove-White DH, Duncan JS. Sheep and farm level factors associated with footrot: a longitudinal repeated cross-sectional study of sheep on six farms in the UK. Vet Rec. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29363571/

[52] Asheim LJ, Hopp P, Grøneng GM, et al. A financial cost-benefit analysis of eradicating virulent footrot. Prev Vet Med. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28992932/

[53] Niggeler A, Tetens J, Stäuble A, et al. A genome-wide significant association on chromosome 2 for footrot resistance/susceptibility in Swiss White Alpine sheep. Anim Genet. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28983925/

[54] Maboni G, Davenport R, Sessford K, et al. A Novel 3D Skin Explant Model to Study Anaerobic Bacterial Infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28959685/

[55] Allworth MB, Egerton JR. Artificial infection of sheep with multiple strains of Dichelobacter nodosus to induce footrot. Aust Vet J. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28749020/

[56] Atia J, Monaghan E, Kaler J, et al. Mathematical modeling of ovine footrot in the UK: the effect of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum on the disease dynamics. Epidemics. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28461081/

[57] Frosth S, König U, Nyman AK, et al. Sample pooling for real-time PCR detection and virulence determination of the footrot pathogen Dichelobacter nodosus. Vet Res Commun. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28343363/

[58] Maboni G, Blanchard A, Frosth S, et al. A distinct bacterial dysbiosis associated skin inflammation in ovine footrot. Sci Rep. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28338081/

[59] McPherson AS, Dhungyel OP, Whittington RJ. Evaluation of Genotypic and Phenotypic Protease Virulence Tests for Dichelobacter nodosus Infection in Sheep. J Clin Microbiol. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28202796/

[60] Winter JR, Green LE. Cost-benefit analysis of management practices for ewes lame with footrot. Vet J. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28190485/

[61] Phythian CJ, Cripps PJ, Grove-White D, et al. Inter-observer agreement for clinical examinations of foot lesions of sheep. Vet J. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27687951/

[62] Greber D, Bearth G, Lüchinger R, et al. Elimination of virulent strains (aprV2) of Dichelobacter nodosus from feet of 28 Swiss sheep flocks: A proof of concept study. Vet J. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27687922/

[63] Clifton R, Green L. Pathogenesis of ovine footrot disease: a complex picture. Vet Rec. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27585895/

[64] Dickins A, Clark CC, Kaler J, et al. Factors associated with the presence and prevalence of contagious ovine digital dermatitis: A 2013 study of 1136 random English sheep flocks. Prev Vet Med. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27435650/

[65] O'Kane H, Ferguson E, Kaler J, et al. Associations between sheep farmer attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality, and their barriers to uptake of best practice: The example of footrot. Prev Vet Med. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27371994/

[66] Maboni G, Frosth S, Aspán A, et al. Ovine footrot: new insights into bacterial colonisation. Vet Rec. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27317761/

[67] Vinod Kumar N, Sreenivasulu D, Karthik A. Identification and characterization of Dichelobacter nodosus serogroup H from ovine footrot in India. Anaerobe. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27259362/

[68] Wani AH, Verma S, Sharma M, et al. Infectious lameness among migratory sheep and goats in north-west India, with particular focus on anaerobes. Rev Sci Tech. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27044157/

[69] Muzafar M, Green LE, Calvo-Bado LA, et al. Survival of the ovine footrot pathogen Dichelobacter nodosus in different soils. Anaerobe. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26746387/

[70] Angell JW, Grove-White DH, Duncan JS. Sheep and farm level factors associated with contagious ovine digital dermatitis: A longitudinal repeated cross-sectional study of sheep on six farms. Prev Vet Med. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26466869/

[71] Winter JR, Kaler J, Ferguson E, et al. Changes in prevalence of, and risk factors for, lameness in random samples of English sheep flocks: 2004-2013. Prev Vet Med. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26435034/

[72] Knappe-Poindecker M, Jørgensen HJ, Jensen TK, et al. Experimental infection of cattle with ovine Dichelobacter nodosus isolates. Acta Vet Scand. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26407552/

[73] Lacasta D, Ferrer LM, Ramos JJ, et al. Vaccination schedules in small ruminant farms. Vet Microbiol. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26220514/

[74] Farooq S, Wani SA, Hassan MN, et al. The detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum from ovine footrot in Kashmir, India. Anaerobe. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26159406/

[75] Groenevelt M, Anzuino K, Langton DA, et al. Association of treponeme species with atypical foot lesions in goats. Vet Rec. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25977404/

[76] Muzafar M, Calvo-Bado LA, Green LE, et al. The role of the environment in transmission of Dichelobacter nodosus between ewes and their lambs. Vet Microbiol. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25953734/

[77] Mucha S, Bunger L, Conington J. Genome-wide association study of footrot in Texel sheep. Genet Sel Evol. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25926335/

[78] Kennan RM, Lovitt CJ, Han X, et al. A two-component regulatory system modulates twitching motility in Dichelobacter nodosus. Vet Microbiol. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25891425/

[79] Grøneng GM, Vatn S, Kristoffersen AB, et al. The potential spread of severe footrot in Norway if no elimination programme had been initiated: a simulation model. Vet Res. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25828795/

[80] Frosth S, König U, Nyman AK, et al. Characterisation of Dichelobacter nodosus and detection of Fusobacterium necrophorum and Treponema spp. in sheep with different clinical manifestations of footrot. Vet Microbiol. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25796133/

[81] Witcomb LA, Green LE, Calvo-Bado LA, et al. First study of pathogen load and localisation of ovine footrot using fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH). Vet Microbiol. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25742734/

[82] Dhungyel O, Schiller N, Whittington R. Identification and characterization of serogroup M Dichelobacter nodosus from sheep with virulent footrot. Vet Microbiol. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25669597/

[83] Bhardwaj V, Dhungyel O, de Silva K, et al. Investigation of immunity in sheep following footrot infection and vaccination. Vaccine. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25454866/

[84] Kennan RM, Gilhuus M, Frosth S, et al. Genomic evidence for a globally distributed, bimodal population in the ovine footrot pathogen Dichelobacter nodosus. mBio. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25271288/

[85] Egerton J. Aetiology of ovine footrot. Prev Vet Med. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25239683/

[86] Davenport R, Heawood C, Sessford K, et al. Differential expression of Toll-like receptors and inflammatory cytokines in ovine interdigital dermatitis and footrot. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25124770/

[87] Smith EM, Green OD, Calvo-Bado LA, et al. Dynamics and impact of footrot and climate on hoof horn length in 50 ewes from one farm over a period of 10 months. Vet J. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24973007/

[88] Duncan JS, Angell JW, Carter SD, et al. Contagious ovine digital dermatitis: an emerging disease. Vet J. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24973004/

[89] Gilhuus M, Kvitle B, L'Abée-Lund TM, et al. A recently introduced Dichelobacter nodosus strain caused an outbreak of footrot in Norway. Acta Vet Scand. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24886510/

[90] Sreenivasulu D, Vijayalakshmi S, Raniprameela D, et al. Prevalence of ovine footrot in the tropical climate of southern India and isolation and characterisation of Dichelobacter nodosus. Rev Sci Tech. 2013. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24761738/

[91] Dhungyel O, Hunter J, Whittington R. Footrot vaccines and vaccination. Vaccine. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24736003/

[92] Witcomb LA, Green LE, Kaler J, et al. A longitudinal study of the role of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum load in initiation and severity of footrot in sheep. Prev Vet Med. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24703249/

[93] Knappe-Poindecker M, Gilhuus M, Jensen TK, et al. Cross-infection of virulent Dichelobacter nodosus between sheep and co-grazing cattle. Vet Microbiol. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24698131/

[94] Hall JA, Vorachek WR, Stewart WC, et al. Selenium supplementation restores innate and humoral immune responses in footrot-affected sheep. PLoS One. 2013. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24340044/

[95] Lakatos G, Vincze BN, Vass N, et al. Effects of melatonin treatment on twin pregnancy and fetal mortality in sheep. Pol J Vet Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42299086/

[96] Wassink GJ, King EM, Grogono-Thomas R, et al. A within farm clinical trial to compare two treatments (parenteral antibacterials and hoof trimming) for sheep lame with footrot. Prev Vet Med. 2010. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20627343/

[97] Whittington RJ, Nicholls PJ. Effects of the severity and duration of lesions on the primary and anamnestic humoral responses of sheep to Dichelobacter nodosus and observations of natural resistance to footrot. Res Vet Sci. 1995. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8525101/

[98] Ley SJ, Waterman AE, Livingston A. A field study of the effect of lameness on mechanical nociceptive thresholds in sheep. Vet Rec. 1995. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8533247/

[99] Clegg SR, Angell JW, Millson SH, et al. Multilocus sequence typing of pathogenic treponemes isolated from contagious ovine digital dermatitis stage five lesions: Implications for disease transmission dynamics. Res Vet Sci. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38996658/

[100] Angell JW, Grove-White DH, Williams HJ, et al. Whole-flock, metaphylactic tilmicosin failed to eliminate contagious ovine digital dermatitis and footrot in sheep: a cluster randomised trial. Vet Rec. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27450091/

[101] Dhungyel O, Schiller N, Eppleston J, et al. Outbreak-specific monovalent/bivalent vaccination to control and eradicate virulent ovine footrot. Vaccine. 2013. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23395621/

[102] Eibach R, Bothe F, Runge M, et al. Long-term monitoring of a Coxiella burnetii-infected sheep flock after vaccination and antibiotic treatment under field conditions. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2013. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23367662/ *** 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. *** 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.