Treponema pedis and Bovine Digital Dermatitis: Lameness in Dairy Cattle

Introduction

Bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) is a contagious, infectious cause of lameness in dairy cattle worldwide, characterized by painful, erosive, or proliferative lesions of the digital skin, typically on the plantar aspect of the hind feet [1, 2, 3]. The disease imposes significant economic losses through reduced milk yield, impaired fertility, increased culling, and compromised animal welfare [40, 69, 73]. The primary etiological agents are spirochetes of the genus Treponema, with Treponema pedis recognized as a key pathogenic species [4, 5]. This article provides an exhaustive review of T. pedis and its role in BDD, integrating microbiological, molecular diagnostic, epidemiological, and therapeutic perspectives.

Taxonomy and Microbiology of Treponema pedis

Treponema pedis was formally described as a novel species isolated from BDD lesions in dairy cattle [4]. The species belongs to the family Spirochaetaceae, order Spirochaetales, and is closely related to Treponema phagedenis, Treponema medium, and Treponema vincentii [6, 7]. Phylogenetic analyses based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) have confirmed that T. pedis forms a distinct clade within the treponemes associated with cloven-hoofed animal infections [7, 8]. The complete genome sequence of T. pedis strain GNW45, isolated from a Korean dairy herd with active BDD, revealed a genome size of approximately 2.8 Mb with a G+C content of 37.8% [9]. Comparative genomics indicates that T. pedis shares a high degree of synteny with the human oral pathogen Treponema denticola, suggesting a common ancestral origin and conserved virulence mechanisms [10].

T. pedis is an obligate anaerobe, fastidious in culture, requiring enriched media such as oral treponeme isolation broth or serum-supplemented media [11, 12]. Filter-assisted culture methods have improved isolation success from BDD lesions [11]. The organism is motile via periplasmic flagella and exhibits a characteristic helical morphology [4]. Metabolic profiling of T. pedis and T. phagedenis has revealed distinct substrate utilization patterns, with T. pedis preferentially fermenting amino acids and short-chain fatty acids, which may influence community succession within the lesion microbiome [13].

Pathogenesis and Host-Pathogen Interactions

The pathogenesis of BDD involves a polymicrobial biofilm-like community in which treponemes are the dominant bacterial group [5, 14]. T. pedis invades the epidermis and dermis of the bovine foot skin, eliciting an inflammatory response characterized by infiltration of neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes [15, 16]. Histopathological examination of BDD lesions shows marked epidermal hyperplasia, spongiosis, and the presence of spirochetes within the intercellular spaces of the stratum spinosum [17, 16].

In vitro studies using bovine foot skin fibroblasts demonstrated that T. pedis induces distinct pathogenic mechanisms compared to other treponeme species, including upregulation of matrix metalloproteinases and pro-inflammatory cytokines [15]. A murine abscess model revealed that T. pedis isolates display variable pathogenicity, with some strains causing severe necrotic lesions while others induce milder inflammation [18]. The ability of T. pedis to adhere to and invade host cells is mediated by putative outer membrane proteins, including β-barrel proteins that are immunogenic and may serve as vaccine targets [68]. Gene expression analyses of T. phagedenis during infection have shown increased transcription of adherence and metal-ion acquisition genes, a pattern likely shared by T. pedis [43].

Transcellular penetration of treponemes through keratinocytes has been demonstrated for T. phagedenis in a polarized human keratinocyte model, suggesting a mechanism for breaching the epidermal barrier [61]. Although direct evidence for T. pedis is lacking, the close phylogenetic relationship implies similar invasive capabilities. The host immune response to BDD is characterized by a predominance of CD8+ and γδ-T cells, with a relative lack of CD4+ T cells, which may contribute to chronicity and failure to clear the infection [80].

Epidemiology and Transmission

BDD is endemic in dairy herds globally, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 80% at the herd level [40, 47, 73]. T. pedis has been detected in BDD lesions across multiple continents, including Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia [1, 12, 8, 47]. The organism is also found in lesions of contagious ovine digital dermatitis (CODD) in sheep, foot lesions in goats, and hoof canker in horses, indicating a broad host range among cloven-hoofed animals [19, 20, 16, 21, 22]. Additionally, T. pedis has been isolated from porcine skin ulcers and gingiva, suggesting a potential reservoir in swine [23, 24, 25, 26]. Experimental inoculation of T. pedis in pigs failed to induce ear necrosis, indicating that host-specific factors are required for disease expression [27].

Transmission of BDD occurs through direct contact with infected feet and contaminated environments. Treponemes can survive in slurry, on hoof-trimming knives, and in the farm environment for extended periods [3, 28, 50, 64]. The gastrointestinal tract of cattle and sheep has been proposed as a potential infection reservoir, as treponeme DNA has been detected in feces and intestinal contents [29]. Molecular detection of Treponema species in foremilk and udder cleft skin suggests that extra-digital sites may contribute to within-herd spread [30]. Risk factors for BDD include high stocking density, poor hygiene, wet conditions, and frequent movement through contaminated walkways [73, 74]. Herd-level risk factors in New Zealand pasture-based systems include rainfall, soil type, and management practices such as grazing rotation [74].

Clinical Presentation and Lesion Staging

BDD lesions are typically located on the plantar skin of the hind feet, just proximal to the interdigital cleft [3, 59]. The M-stage scoring system is widely used to classify lesions: M0 (normal skin), M1 (small active lesion <2 cm), M2 (active ulcerative or proliferative lesion >2 cm), M3 (healing/scab-covered lesion), and M4 (chronic dyskeratotic or hyperkeratotic lesion) [75, 77]. T. pedis is most abundant in M2 lesions, with bacterial loads correlating with lesion severity [77]. Pain associated with active lesions leads to characteristic weight-shifting and arched-back posture, and affected cows exhibit increased locomotion scores [53, 66]. The role of transient receptor potential vanilloid type 1 (TRPV1) in hyperalgesia has been investigated, with evidence of increased TRPV1 expression in BDD-affected skin [66].

Non-healing claw horn lesions, such as sole ulcers and white line disease, have also been associated with treponeme infection, including T. pedis [17, 31]. This suggests that treponemes may contribute to chronicity in other foot pathologies.

Diagnostic Approaches

Clinical and Visual Diagnosis

Visual inspection of the foot during trimming or in the milking parlor is the primary method for BDD detection. However, interobserver agreement for M-scores can be variable, and early lesions (M1) are easily missed [75]. Borescope examination and trimming chute exams have been evaluated for diagnostic accuracy using Bayesian latent class models [70].

Molecular Diagnostics

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and quantitative PCR (qPCR) are the gold standard for specific detection and quantification of T. pedis and other treponemes. A multiplex qPCR assay targeting T. phagedenis, T. pedis, T. medium, and T. vincentii has been developed and validated on BDD biopsies [6]. 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing provides a broader view of the lesion microbiome and has been used to profile bacterial communities in BDD lesions of both dairy and beef cattle [2, 39, 59]. Species-specific 4-plex real-time PCR assays have been applied to Finnish dairy herds, confirming the dominance of T. pedis in active lesions [39]. Comparison of swab, fine-needle aspiration, and biopsy samples for treponeme detection showed that swabs are adequate for qPCR but biopsies provide superior histological correlation [32].

Serological Diagnostics

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) targeting T. phagedenis antigens have been developed for detection of antibodies in bulk tank milk, providing a herd-level monitoring tool [44, 48]. An in-house ELISA for treponeme antibodies in bulk milk has been proposed as part of a claw health monitoring program [48]. Indirect ELISAs using recombinant proteins have shown promise for individual animal diagnosis, although sensitivity and specificity require further optimization [57].

Imaging and Novel Technologies

Infrared thermography has been investigated as a non-invasive tool for detecting BDD-associated inflammation, with temperature differences between affected and healthy feet being statistically significant [60, 79]. Computer vision algorithms using digital photographs have been developed to automatically detect BDD lesions, offering potential for automated screening in milking parlor systems [65].

The following Mermaid diagram summarizes a diagnostic workflow for BDD:

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical lameness examination] --> B{Visual foot inspection}
    B --> C[M-score assessment]
    C --> D["Active lesion (M1/M2")]
    C --> E["Chronic/healing lesion (M3/M4")]
    D --> F[Swab or biopsy collection]
    E --> F
    F --> G[DNA extraction]
    G --> H[Multiplex qPCR for Treponema spp.]
    H --> I[Quantification of T. pedis, T. phagedenis, etc.]
    I --> J["Interpretation: high treponeme load = active BDD"]
    H --> K["16S rRNA amplicon sequencing (optional")]
    K --> L[Microbiome profiling]
    F --> M["Bulk tank milk ELISA (herd-level")]
    M --> N[Herd-level antibody detection]
    B --> O["Infrared thermography (adjunct")]
    O --> P[Temperature differential > threshold]
    P --> D

Treatment and Control

Antimicrobial Therapy

Topical antimicrobial therapy is the mainstay of BDD treatment. Historically, oxytetracycline spray and lincomycin have been used, but concerns over antimicrobial resistance have prompted evaluation of alternatives [33, 71]. In vitro susceptibility testing of BDD treponemes, including T. pedis, has shown that conventional agents such as tetracyclines and macrolides remain effective, but heavy metal resistance (e.g., to zinc and copper) has been documented [33]. Non-antibiotic options include salicylic acid paste, polyurethane wound dressings, and phenytoin [56, 72]. A randomized clinical trial comparing stannous fluoride and zinc sulfate footbath solutions to copper sulfate found that stannous fluoride was as effective as copper sulfate for treatment and prevention [45]. Quaternary ammonium salt-based disinfectants and chelated copper-zinc footbath solutions have also shown efficacy [49]. Glutaraldehyde footbath products are used in some regions [76].

Non-Antibiotic and Novel Therapies

Methylene blue-mediated antimicrobial photodynamic therapy has been investigated as a non-antibiotic platform for BDD, with in vitro and case report evidence of efficacy [62, 78]. Nanoparticles (e.g., silver, zinc oxide) have demonstrated antimicrobial activity against BDD treponemes in vitro [51]. The use of allyl isothiocyanate as a topical treatment altered the lesion microbiome, reducing treponeme abundance [67]. Phenytoin, a non-antibiotic drug, promoted wound healing in BDD lesions in a clinical trial [56]. Ketoprofen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, has been evaluated as an adjunct to topical therapy to reduce pain and inflammation [58].

Biosecurity and Environmental Control

Footbathing with disinfectants, regular hoof trimming with disinfection of equipment, and maintaining clean, dry walking surfaces are critical for control [64, 76]. Removal of treponemes from hoof knives requires appropriate disinfection protocols; glutaraldehyde and peracetic acid-based disinfectants are effective [64]. Modeling studies have highlighted the importance of reducing transmission through hygiene and cow flow management [69].

Vaccination and Immunomodulation

No commercial vaccine is currently available for BDD. Immunogenic proteins of T. phagedenis have been identified by phage display, and β-barrel outer membrane proteins of BDD treponemes are being explored as vaccine candidates [34, 68]. Supplementation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product modulated pro-inflammatory cytokine responses in experimentally inoculated cattle, suggesting potential for immunomodulatory feed additives [41].

Antimicrobial Resistance and Heavy Metal Tolerance

The in vitro susceptibility of BDD treponemes to conventional antimicrobials remains generally favorable, but resistance to heavy metals commonly used in footbath solutions (copper, zinc) has been detected [33]. This resistance may be mediated by metal efflux pumps and sequestration mechanisms, as suggested by genomic analyses [9, 43]. The emergence of heavy metal tolerance is a concern because it may reduce the efficacy of footbath formulations and select for resistant treponeme populations.

Computational Biology and Genomic Insights

The availability of complete genome sequences for T. pedis and T. phagedenis has enabled comparative genomic analyses that reveal potential virulence factors, metabolic pathways, and evolutionary relationships [9, 10, 63]. Flux balance analysis and metabolic network reconstruction have been applied to understand the metabolic interactions between treponemes and other members of the BDD microbiome [13]. Such computational approaches can identify essential genes and potential drug targets. The use of high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics pipelines for 16S rRNA amplicon analysis has become standard for characterizing the BDD microbiome [2, 14, 59]. Machine learning algorithms applied to thermography and computer vision data are being developed for automated BDD detection [60, 65].

Conclusion

Treponema pedis is a primary etiological agent of bovine digital dermatitis, a debilitating infectious disease of dairy cattle. Advances in molecular diagnostics, including multiplex qPCR and 16S rRNA sequencing, have improved detection and quantification of this fastidious spirochete. Understanding the pathogenesis, epidemiology, and host immune response is essential for developing effective control strategies. Non-antibiotic therapies and improved biosecurity measures are increasingly important in the face of antimicrobial resistance concerns. Continued genomic and computational research will further elucidate the mechanisms of treponeme virulence and host interaction, paving the way for novel interventions.

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.

References

[1] Mekková S, Sondorová M, Ivančová P et al. Molecular detection and distribution of Treponema species in a commercial dairy cattle herd in Slovakia. Vet Res Commun. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40971072/

[2] Pyakurel S, Caddey BJ, Dias AP et al. Profiling bacterial communities in feedlot cattle affected with bovine foot rot and bovine digital dermatitis lesions using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and quantitative real-time PCR. BMC Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40114065/

[3] Dias AP, Orsel K, De Buck J. Quantifying and mapping digital dermatitis-associated bacteria in lesion and nonlesion body sites and dairy farm environment. J Dairy Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38135044/

[4] Evans NJ, Brown JM, Demirkan I et al. Treponema pedis

[5] Mamuad LL, Seo BJ, Faruk MSA et al. Treponema spp., the dominant pathogen in the lesion of bovine digital dermatitis and its characterization in dairy cattle. Vet Microbiol. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32456812/

[6] Frosth S, Eriksson HK, Rosander A. Development of a multiplex quantitative PCR assay for simultaneous detection of Treponema phagedenis, Treponema pedis, Treponema medium, and 'Treponema vincentii' and evaluation on bovine digital dermatitis biopsies. Vet Res Commun. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37261642/

[7] Clegg SR, Carter SD, Birtles RJ et al. Multilocus Sequence Typing of Pathogenic Treponemes Isolated from Cloven-Hoofed Animals and Comparison to Treponemes Isolated from Humans. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27208135/

[8] Sullivan LE, Evans NJ, Blowey RW et al. A molecular epidemiology of treponemes in beef cattle digital dermatitis lesions and comparative analyses with sheep contagious ovine digital dermatitis and dairy cattle digital dermatitis lesions. Vet Microbiol. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25937315/

[9] Espiritu H, Mamuad L, Valete EJ et al. Complete genome sequence of Treponema pedis GNW45 isolated from dairy cattle with active bovine digital dermatitis in Korea. J Anim Sci Technol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39398312/

[10] Svartström O, Mushtaq M, Pringle M et al. Genome-wide relatedness of Treponema pedis, from gingiva and necrotic skin lesions of pigs, with the human oral pathogen Treponema denticola. PLoS One. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23977007/

[11] Brodard I, Alsaaod M, Gurtner C et al. A filter-assisted culture method for isolation of Treponema spp. from bovine digital dermatitis and their identification by MALDI-TOF MS. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33834899/

[12] Demirkan I, Erdoğan M, Demirkan AÇ et al. Isolation and identification of Treponema pedis and Treponema phagedenis-like organisms from bovine digital dermatitis lesions found in dairy cattle in Turkey. J Dairy Sci. 2018. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30219415/

[13] Espiritu HM, Valete EJP, Mamuad LL et al. Metabolic Footprint of Treponema phagedenis and Treponema pedis Reveals Potential Interaction Towards Community Succession and Pathogenesis in Bovine Digital Dermatitis. Pathogens. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39338987/

[14] Klitgaard K, Foix Bretó A, Boye M et al. Targeting the treponemal microbiome of digital dermatitis infections by high-resolution phylogenetic analyses and comparison with fluorescent in situ hybridization. J Clin Microbiol. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23658264/

[15] Newbrook K, Carter SD, Crosby-Durrani H et al. Challenge of Bovine Foot Skin Fibroblasts With Digital Dermatitis Treponemes Identifies Distinct Pathogenic Mechanisms. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33489929/

[16] Angell JW, Crosby-Durrani HE, Duncan JS et al. Histopathological Characterization of the Lesions of Contagious Ovine Digital Dermatitis and Immunolabelling of Treponema-like Organisms. J Comp Pathol. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26597022/

[17] Alsaaod M, Weber J, Jensen T et al. "Non-healing" claw horn lesions in dairy cows: Clinical, histopathological and molecular biological characterization of four cases. Front Vet Sci. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36337205/

[18] Arrazuria R, Knight CG, Lahiri P et al. Treponema spp. Isolated from Bovine Digital Dermatitis Display Different Pathogenicity in a Murine Abscess Model. Microorganisms. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33007829/

[19] Marčeková P, Mad'ar M, Styková E et al. The Presence of Treponema spp. in Equine Hoof Canker Biopsies and Skin Samples from Bovine Digital Dermatitis Lesions. Microorganisms. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34835315/

[20] Crosby-Durrani HE, Clegg SR, Singer E et al. Severe Foot Lesions in Dairy Goats Associated with Digital Dermatitis Treponemes. J Comp Pathol. 2016. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27162082/

[21] Sullivan LE, Clegg SR, Angell JW et al. High-level association of bovine digital dermatitis Treponema spp. with contagious ovine digital dermatitis lesions and presence of Fusobacterium necrophorum and Dichelobacter nodosus. J Clin Microbiol. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25740778/

[22] Sullivan LE, Evans NJ, Clegg SR et al. Digital dermatitis treponemes associated with a severe foot disease in dairy goats. Vet Rec. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25428906/

[23] Karlsson F, Klitgaard K, Jensen TK. Identification of Treponema pedis as the predominant Treponema species in porcine skin ulcers by fluorescence in situ hybridization and high-throughput sequencing. Vet Microbiol. 2014. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24725449/

[24] Svartström O, Karlsson F, Fellström C et al. Characterization of Treponema spp. isolates from pigs with ear necrosis and shoulder ulcers. Vet Microbiol. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23948134/

[25] Karlsson F, Svartström O, Belák K et al. Occurrence of Treponema spp. in porcine skin ulcers and gingiva. Vet Microbiol. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23631924/

[26] Pringle M, Fellström C. Treponema pedis isolated from a sow shoulder ulcer. Vet Microbiol. 2010. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20004066/

[27] Karlsson F, Rosander A, Fellström C et al. Experimental inoculation of Treponema pedis T A4 failed to induce ear necrosis in pigs. Porcine Health Manag. 2017. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29270310/

[28] Klitgaard K, Nielsen MW, Ingerslev HC et al. Discovery of bovine digital dermatitis-associated Treponema spp. in the dairy herd environment by a targeted deep-sequencing approach. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24814794/

[29] Sullivan LE, Carter SD, Duncan JS et al. The gastrointestinal tract as a potential infection reservoir of digital dermatitis-associated treponemes in beef cattle and sheep. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26276110/

[30] Sobhy NM, Mahmmod YS, Refaai W et al. Molecular detection of Treponema species organisms in foremilk and udder cleft skin of dairy cows with digital dermatitis. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31520339/

[31] Sykora S, Kofler J, Glonegger-Reichert J et al. Treponema DNA in bovine 'non-healing' versus common sole ulcers and white line disease. Vet J. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26093913/

[32] Dias AP, De Buck J. Detection and quantification of bacterial species DNA in bovine digital dermatitis lesions in swabs and fine-needle aspiration versus biopsies. Front Vet Sci. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36467632/

[33] Gillespie A, Haldenby S, Blowey R et al. In vitro susceptibility of bovine digital dermatitis treponemes to conventional and novel antimicrobial agents, and evidence of heavy metal resistance. Anaerobe. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41638621/

[34] Rosander A, Guss B, Frykberg L et al. Identification of immunogenic proteins in Treponema phagedenis-like strain V1 from digital dermatitis lesions by phage display. Vet Microbiol. 2011. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21763087/

[35] Deb S, Wild MA, LeClair T et al. Discovery of novel treponemes associated with pododermatitis in elk (Cervus canadensis). Appl Environ Microbiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38742897/

[36] Hoby S, Jensen TK, Brodard I et al. Detection of treponemes in digital dermatitis lesions of captive European bison (Bison bonasus). PLoS One. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370779/

[37] Angell JW, Clegg SR, Sullivan LE et al. In vitro susceptibility of contagious ovine digital dermatitis associated Treponema spp. isolates to antimicrobial agents in the UK. Vet Dermatol. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26482550/

[38] Clegg SR, Mansfield KG, Newbrook K et al. Isolation of digital dermatitis treponemes from hoof lesions in Wild North American Elk (Cervus elaphus) in Washington State, USA. J Clin Microbiol. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25355757/