Pasteurella multocida in Cattle: Bovine Respiratory Disease and Pathogenesis

1. Introduction

Pasteurella multocida is a Gram-negative, facultatively anaerobic coccobacillus that constitutes a significant component of the bovine respiratory disease (BRD) complex, the most economically impactful infectious disease affecting feedlot and dairy cattle worldwide [1, 2, 3]. BRD is a multifactorial syndrome involving viral and bacterial pathogens, host immune status, and environmental stressors [4, 5]. P. multocida functions both as a primary respiratory pathogen and as a secondary invader following viral infection or stress-induced immunosuppression [6, 7]. The species exhibits considerable genomic diversity, with multiple capsular serotypes (A, B, D, E, F) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) genotypes associated with varying host predilections and disease manifestations [2, 8]. In cattle, capsular serotype A (primarily associated with the hsd locus) and serotype B are most frequently isolated from pneumonic lungs, though serotypes D and E have also been reported in BRD outbreaks [9, 10]. Understanding the molecular pathogenesis of P. multocida within the bovine respiratory tract is essential for developing improved diagnostic algorithms, antimicrobial stewardship programs, and vaccine strategies [11, 12].

2. Taxonomy, Serotyping, and Genomic Diversity

P. multocida belongs to the family Pasteurellaceae, which also includes Mannheimia haemolytica, Histophilus somni, and Bibersteinia trehalosi [13, 14]. The species is divided into five capsular serogroups (A, B, D, E, F) based on the antigenic specificity of the polysaccharide capsule, with serogroup A being the predominant type associated with bovine respiratory disease [15, 16]. Molecular serotyping using multiplex PCR targeting capsule biosynthesis genes (e.g., hyaD, hsfI, dcbF) has largely replaced traditional serological methods, providing higher throughput and specificity [17, 18]. Serogroup A isolates from cattle share a conserved genetic backbone but exhibit substantial variation in accessory genome content, including integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs) that carry antimicrobial resistance determinants [19, 20]. Genomic analyses of Norwegian calf isolates revealed that P. multocida from pneumonic lungs clustered into distinct clades with specific virulence gene repertoires, including the presence of the tad locus encoding a Flp pilus involved in adherence [2]. A similar study from Spanish feedlots identified that BRD outbreak strains often carried ICEs harboring macrolide and tetracycline resistance genes, suggesting that genomic plasticity facilitates rapid adaptation to antimicrobial selection pressure [21, 22]. Whole-genome sequencing has further enabled phylogenetic comparisons between bovine and avian isolates, confirming host-adapted lineages, though some bovine strains share ancestry with serotypes causing avian cholera [23, 24].

3. Pathogenesis and Virulence Mechanisms

3.1. Adherence and Colonization

The initial step in P. multocida pathogenesis is adherence to the respiratory epithelium. Capsular polysaccharide, particularly hyaluronic acid in serogroup A, mediates initial attachment and provides antiphagocytic properties [25, 26]. The P. multocida genome encodes multiple adhesins, including filamentous hemagglutinin (FhaB), two autotransporter adhesins (Pm0979 and Pm0999), and the Flp pilus encoded by the tad locus [27, 28]. In well-differentiated bovine airway epithelial cell models, P. multocida serogroup A strains demonstrated the ability to bind to ciliated and non-ciliated cells, with adherence enhanced in the presence of inflammatory cytokines [29, 30]. The bacterium also expresses lipoproteins that interact with host extracellular matrix components, such as fibronectin and collagen, promoting tissue colonization [31, 32].

3.2. Immune Evasion and Survival

P. multocida employs multiple strategies to evade the host immune response. A surface lipoprotein recently identified binds complement factor I, a negative regulator of the complement cascade, thereby inhibiting opsonophagocytosis and C3 deposition [33]. This mechanism is distinct from the capsular antiphagocytic effect and represents a specific immune evasion tactic. Furthermore, the bacterium secretes an antilymphocyte transformation substance that suppresses T-cell proliferation and cytokine production, reducing the adaptive immune response [34]. Intracellular survival within macrophages has been documented, with some strains persisting within phagolysosomes by resisting acidification and oxidative stress [35]. The stringent response, mediated by (p)ppGpp, negatively regulates hyaluronic acid capsule production but may enhance stress resistance under nutrient-limiting conditions, such as those encountered in the host [36].

3.3. Exotoxin and Cytotoxic Effects

The major virulence factor of P. multocida is the dermonecrotic toxin (PMT), encoded by the toxA gene [37]. PMT is a potent mitogen that constitutively activates heterotrimeric G proteins (Gq, Gi, G12/13), leading to uncontrolled cell proliferation and cytoskeletal rearrangement [38]. In the bovine respiratory tract, PMT induces epithelial cell apoptosis via the Rassf1-Hippo-Yap pathway, contributing to alveolar damage and airway inflammation [39]. Not all bovine P. multocida isolates carry toxA; serogroup A strains from pneumonic calves frequently lack the toxin gene, whereas serogroup D strains more commonly express PMT and are associated with atrophic rhinitis in swine [40]. Nevertheless, toxA-positive bovine strains have been isolated from cases of bronchopneumonia and epididymitis in calves, indicating that PMT may contribute to disease in certain contexts [41, 42].

3.4. Lipopolysaccharide and Inflammatory Response

The LPS of P. multocida is a potent inducer of the innate immune response via Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) and myeloid differentiation factor 2 (MD-2) [43]. LPS stimulates alveolar macrophages and epithelial cells to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1beta), and interleukin-8 (IL-8) [44]. This cytokine cascade recruits neutrophils to the lung parenchyma, leading to fibrinosuppurative bronchopneumonia, the characteristic histological lesion of P. multocida-associated BRD [45, 46]. Concurrent infection with respiratory viruses such as bovine respiratory syncytial virus or bovine herpesvirus-1 upregulates adhesion molecules (e.g., ICAM-1) on epithelial cells, enhancing bacterial attachment and exacerbating inflammation [47, 48]. Conversely, BRSV infection can decrease P. multocida adherence by downregulating ICAM-1 expression in upper respiratory epithelia, illustrating the complex interplay between viral and bacterial factors [49].

4. Role in the Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex

4.1. Epidemiological Context

P. multocida is consistently one of the most prevalent bacterial pathogens isolated from the lower respiratory tract of calves and feedlot cattle with BRD [50, 51]. In a study of Norwegian calves, P. multocida was identified in 62% of pneumonic lungs by culture and immunohistochemistry, often in mixed infections with M. haemolytica and Mycoplasma bovis [1]. Similarly, a US feedlot survey reported P. multocida in 45% of deep nasopharyngeal swabs from acutely affected animals [52]. The pathogen is also detected in the upper respiratory tract of healthy cattle, acting as an opportunistic pathogen that proliferates when host defenses are compromised by stress, viral infection, or poor ventilation [53, 54].

4.2. Co-infections and Synergism

BRD outbreaks frequently involve polymicrobial interactions. P. multocida commonly co-occurs with Histophilus somni, Trueperella pyogenes, and Mycoplasma bovirhinis [55, 56]. In Korean native calves, T. pyogenes was the primary isolate in acute pneumonia cases, but P. multocida was also recovered from over 30% of lung samples, often together with M. bovis [6]. Metagenomic analyses of Australian feedlot cattle revealed that P. multocida is part of a dysbiotic lung microbiome often dominated by M. haemolytica and M. bovis, with virus-bacteria co-infections (e.g., bovine coronavirus and P. multocida) associated with the most severe clinical outcomes [10, 57]. Viral pathogens such as bovine viral diarrhea virus and influenza D virus disrupt mucociliary clearance and suppress macrophage function, creating a permissive environment for P. multocida colonization [58, 59].

4.3. Clinical Manifestations and Pathology

P. multocida causes acute to subacute fibrinosuppurative bronchopneumonia, characterized by cranioventral lung consolidation, neutrophil infiltration, and fibrin exudation [3, 60]. Clinical signs include fever, tachypnea, nasal discharge, cough, and depression [4]. Thoracic ultrasonography reveals dorsal lung consolidation and comet-tail artifacts in affected calves [61]. In adult cows, acute infectious bronchopneumonia caused by P. multocida presents with comparable clinical signs but carries a guarded prognosis, especially when associated with bacteremia [62]. Extrapulmonary infections, such as epididymitis in calves, indicate the ability of P. multocida to disseminate beyond the respiratory tract [27].

5. Diagnostic Approaches

5.1. Conventional Culture and Phenotypic Identification

Traditional diagnosis relies on aerobic culture of nasopharyngeal swabs, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, or lung tissue on blood agar or selective media [63, 64]. P. multocida colonies are smooth, gray, and non-hemolytic, with a characteristic "mousy" odor. Identification is confirmed by Gram stain, oxidase positivity, and catalase production. However, culture sensitivity declines with sample storage time and temperature; transport in Amies medium with refrigeration is recommended [65]. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) provides rapid species-level identification directly from colony isolates, outperforming biochemical panels [66].

5.2. Molecular Detection

Real-time PCR assays are now the gold standard for detecting P. multocida in clinical specimens, with multiplex formats capable of simultaneously identifying multiple BRD pathogens [18, 26]. A multiplex qPCR targeting the kmt1 gene (species-specific) in combination with capsular typing genes enables serogroup determination [67]. High-throughput real-time PCR platforms facilitate batch testing of nasal swabs and lavage samples, revealing high prevalence rates in both dairy and veal calf populations [36, 68]. Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) assays have been developed for point-of-care detection of P. multocida and macrolide resistance genes (e.g., erm(42), msr(E)-mph(E)) without thermal cycling, showing sensitivity comparable to qPCR [9, 69]. These isothermal methods are well suited for on-farm use in resource-limited settings.

5.3. Metagenomics and Sequencing

Third-generation (long-read) metagenomic sequencing offers comprehensive detection of BRD pathogens and antimicrobial resistance determinants directly from respiratory samples [70, 71]. Bacterial enrichment prior to sequencing improves read depth for P. multocida and other Pasteurellaceae [72]. Comparative studies have shown that metagenomics correlates well with culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing for detecting resistance genes, though sensitivity for low-abundance resistances varies [73]. Metagenomics also reveals co-infecting viruses and provides draft genome sequences for phylogenetic analysis, aiding outbreak investigations [74, 75].

5.4. Serological and Immunohistochemical Methods

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) using monoclonal antibodies against P. multocida capsular or LPS antigens can identify the bacterium in formalin-fixed lung tissue, confirming its etiological role in pneumonia [1, 76]. ELISA-based serological surveillance is less commonly used for BRD due to high background seroprevalence in herds, but can aid in vaccine efficacy studies [77].

6. Antimicrobial Resistance

6.1. Resistance Prevalence and Trends

The emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) P. multocida isolates is a major concern for BRD therapy. A systematic review of ruminant respiratory pathogens reported overall resistance rates exceeding 50% for tetracyclines and sulfonamides, with moderate resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones [14, 78]. US feedlot surveys from 2008-2017 indicated increasing resistance to tulathromycin and danofloxacin, while susceptibility to ceftiofur remained high (over 90%) [74, 79]. California dairy heifer isolates showed MDR defined as resistance to three or more drug classes in 28% of P. multocida strains, with the most common pattern being tetracycline + florfenicol + tilmicosin [80, 81]. A Canadian longitudinal study found that resistance profiles change dynamically during the feeding period, with initial isolates from arrival more susceptible than those recovered from retreatment cases [82, 83].

6.2. Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance

Macrolide resistance in P. multocida is predominantly mediated by the acquisition of ICEs carrying the erm(42) methylase gene (conferring cross-resistance to macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins B) and the msr(E)-mph(E) efflux-plus-inactivation module [84, 85]. Tetracycline resistance is linked to tet(H) and tet(R) genes, also carried on mobile elements. Fluoroquinolone resistance involves mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining regions of gyrA and parC, with the RecO protein identified as a potential target for overcoming this resistance [13, 86]. Integrative conjugative elements (ICEs) are abundant in feedlot P. multocida populations, facilitating horizontal gene transfer between Pasteurellaceae species [87, 88]. Biofilm formation may further enhance resistance by limiting antimicrobial penetration [89].

6.3. Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Considerations

Optimization of dosing regimens is critical to achieve therapeutic efficacy while minimizing resistance selection. A tissue cage model in cattle demonstrated that gamithromycin concentrations exceeding the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for P. multocida for at least 48 hours are required for bacteriological cure [21, 90]. Mutant prevention concentration (MPC) studies showed that pradofloxacin and marbofloxacin exhibit lower MPC/MIC ratios compared to enrofloxacin, suggesting reduced propensity for selecting resistant mutants [37, 91]. Quorum-sensing acyl-homoserine lactone signaling molecules have been shown to regulate enrofloxacin resistance in P. multocida, indicating that anti-virulence strategies could complement antimicrobial therapy [92].

7. Vaccination and Control

7.1. Bacterin and Subunit Vaccines

Autogenous and commercial killed whole-cell bacterins are widely used for BRD prevention. A single-dose autogenous vaccine containing P. multocida and H. somni administered at feedlot induction significantly improved average daily gain and reduced mortality in Australian feedlot cattle [17]. Combined inactivated vaccines incorporating P. multocida serogroup A, M. haemolytica leukotoxoid, and H. somni have shown enhanced protection in field trials [5, 93]. However, efficacy is variable, and multiple doses are often required to achieve adequate mucosal immunity [94].

7.2. Novel Antigen Discovery

Reverse vaccinology has identified surface lipoproteins, such as PlpE and a recently characterized antigen designated as BVEX-1, that elicit protective antibody responses against P. multocida challenge [51, 95]. Intranasal booster vaccination in beef steers reduced clinical signs after viral-bacterial co-infection but did not eliminate bacterial shedding, suggesting that sterilizing immunity is difficult to achieve [43]. The development of a divalent vaccine combining P. multocida capsular antigens with M. haemolytica recombinant leukotoxin (rLkt) is under investigation and shows promise in experimental studies [5].

7.3. Management and Biosecurity

Non-antimicrobial interventions include reducing transport stress, improving ventilation, and implementing all-in/all-out management in calf-rearing facilities [50, 96]. Feeding Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation postbiotic products altered lung transcriptome responses in calves with experimental viral-bacterial co-infection, suggesting that nutritional immunomodulation may reduce BRD severity [97]. Early detection using thoracic ultrasonography and selective antimicrobial therapy based on culture and susceptibility results are recommended to reduce antimicrobial use [4, 98].

8. Diagnostic Workflow

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a decision tree for diagnostic investigation of bovine respiratory disease with a focus on P. multocida detection and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

flowchart TD
    A["Clinical BRD Signs: Fever, Cough, Dyspnea, Nasal Discharge"] --> B["Thoracic Ultrasonography or Radiography"]
    B --> C["Lung Consolidation Present?"]
    C -- Yes --> D["Collect Deep Nasopharyngeal Swab or BAL"]
    C -- No --> E["Alternative Diagnoses (e.g., Interstitial Pneumonia)"]
    D --> F{"Diagnostic Platform"}
    F -- Culture & AST --> G["Blood/MacConkey Agar, MALDI-TOF ID, Disk Diffusion/Broth Microdilution"]
    F -- Multiplex Real-Time PCR --> H["Species-specific (kmt1) + Capsular Serogroup + Resistance Genes (erm42, msrE)"]
    F -- Isothermal RPA --> I["On-Farm Visual Detection (kmt1, macrolide resistance)"]
    F -- Metagenomic Sequencing --> J["Long-Read Sequencing: Pathogen Profile + Resistance Determinants + Phylogeny"]
    G --> K["Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile (MIC Values)"]
    H --> K
    I --> K
    J --> L["Comprehensive Genomic Report"]
    K --> M["Select Targeted Antimicrobial Therapy"]
    L --> M
    M --> N["Monitor Clinical Response & Recheck at 48-72 h"]
    N --> O["Resolved? Continue or Adjust Therapy"]
    N --> P["Not Resolved: Repeat Diagnostics for Resistance Emergence"]

9. Conclusions

Pasteurella multocida remains a central bacterial agent in the bovine respiratory disease complex, capable of causing severe fibrinosuppurative bronchopneumonia through a combination of adhesins, toxins, immune evasion factors, and inflammatory triggers. Its genomic plasticity facilitates the acquisition of mobile resistance elements, leading to increasing multidrug resistance globally. Accurate diagnosis requires molecular methods such as multiplex real-time PCR or isothermal amplification for rapid detection and resistance profiling. Control strategies should integrate stress reduction, optimized antimicrobial use based on susceptibility testing, and enhancement of host immunity through improved vaccine formulations. Continued genomic surveillance and the development of alternative therapeutics, including anti-virulence agents and immunomodulators, are essential to mitigate the impact of P. multocida on bovine respiratory health.

References

[1] Ates MB, Ortatatli M, Terzi F et al. Detection of Pasteurella multocida and macrolide resistance genes in calf pneumonia: an immunohistochemical and molecular approach. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42257921/

[2] Ahmadi A, Oma VS, Ånestad LM et al. Genomic diversity and virulence of Pasteurella multocida in Norwegian calves. Microb Genom. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42257689/

[3] Masset N, Rouault M, Gindrey R et al. A case series of 21 adult cows with acute infectious bronchopneumonia: clinical, laboratory, and thoracic ultrasonographic findings. J Vet Intern Med. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42207578/

[4] Falkeid SE, Ånestad LM, Buczinski S et al. Diagnosing bronchopneumonia in calves. A latent class analysis of the accuracy of clinical examination, thoracic ultrasonography and bacterial culturing from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Prev Vet Med. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41985305/

[5] Yu R, Yang W, Liu X et al. Development and evaluation of a P. multocida A-M. haemolytica A6-rLkt combined vaccine for enhanced control of bovine respiratory disease complex. Microb Pathog. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41974357/

[6] Ji MJ, Kim Y, Kim BS et al. Trueperella pyogenes-Associated Acute Pneumonia in Korean Native Calves. Vet Med Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41902347/

[7] Garzon A, Miramontes C, Weimer BC et al. Characterizing the nasopharyngeal microbiome and resistome of dairy cattle with and without bovine respiratory disease. Microbiol Spectr. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41874180/

[8] Laschinger J, Spergser J, Taxacher B et al. Bacteria identified from deep nasopharyngeal swabs and non-endoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage in calves on farms with a history of bronchopneumonia. Acta Vet Scand. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41832584/

[9] Funk T, McLeod L, Zaheer R et al. Evaluation of recombinase polymerase amplification assays for targeted detection of bovine respiratory disease bacterial pathogens and antimicrobial-resistance genes in feedlot calves. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41782297/

[10] Werid GM, Hemmatzadeh F, Batterham T et al. Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analyses reveal microbial dysbiosis and bacteria-virus interactions in the lungs of Australian feedlot cattle with bovine respiratory disease. Vet Microbiol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41707391/

[11] Ma H, Tatum FM, Briggs RE et al. Transcriptome profiling indicates varied gene responses to Pasteurella multocida mutant infections in cattle. PLoS One. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41615958/

[12] Diab SS, Alvarez I, Ramirez-Barrios R et al. A review of infectious interstitial and bronchointerstitial pneumonia in cattle with an algorithm for the detection of infectious and non-infectious causes. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41588689/

[13] Li XY, Li XY, He J et al. RecO: a potential target for overcoming fluoroquinolone resistance in Pasteurella multocida. J Appl Microbiol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41578944/

[14] Peter S, Zulkiffle MZ, Thlama BP et al. Prevalence and mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in respiratory bacterial pathogens of ruminants: a systematic review. Vet Res Commun. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41160243/

[15] Figueiredo JRX, Silva FHP, Fritzen JTT et al. The Association of Macavirus and Ovine Gammaherpesvirus 2 with Pneumonia in Beef Cattle from Mato Grosso, Brazil. Pathogens. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41011845/

[16] Zhou Y, Guo T, Zhao H et al. Epidemiological Investigation and Phylogenetic Analysis of Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex in Northern China. Vet Med Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40965850/

[17] Werid GM, Batterham T, O'Meara L et al. Single-dose Pasteurella multocida and Histophilus somni autogenous vaccines administered at induction significantly improved feedlot cattle performance and profitability in Australia. Aust Vet J. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40887673/

[18] Hao F, Tao C, Xiao R et al. Development of a Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assay for the Detection of Eight Pathogens Associated with Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex from Clinical Samples. Microorganisms. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40732137/

[19] Monteiro HF, Hoyos-Jaramillo A, Garzon A et al. Antibiogram use on dairy cattle for bovine respiratory disease: Multidrug resistance in Pasteurella multocida and Mannheimia haemolytica in California dairies. J Dairy Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40614804/

[20] Garzon A, Miramontes C, Weimer BC et al. Comparison of virulence and resistance genes in Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida from dairy cattle with and without bovine respiratory disease. Microbiol Spectr. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40522106/

[21] Yang Q, Liu X, Lv Y et al. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of gamithromycin for treating Pasteurella multocida infection in cattle using a tissue cage model. PLoS One. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40440424/

[22] Nguyen QH, Lai CHR, Norris MJ et al. A surface lipoprotein on Pasteurella multocida binds complement factor I to promote immune evasion. PLoS Pathog. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40327719/

[23] Monteiro HF, Hoyos-Jaramillo A, Garzon A et al. Antibiogram use on dairy cattle for bovine respiratory disease: A repeated cross-sectional study evaluating antimicrobial susceptibility of Pasteurella multocida and Mannheimia haemolytica. J Dairy Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40306431/

[24] Monteiro HF, Hoyos-Jaramillo A, Garzon A et al. Antibiogram use on dairy cattle for bovine respiratory disease: Factors associated with bacterial pathogen identification and prediction of bacterial recovery using machine learning. J Dairy Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40250618/

[25] Boccardo A, Ossola M, Pavesi LF et al. An on-farm observational study on the prevalence and associated factors of bacteremia in preweaned dairy

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.