Fowl Adenovirus

Overview and Taxonomy of Fowl Adenovirus

Fowl adenoviruses (FAdVs) represent a globally pervasive group of pathogens within the family Adenoviridae, genus Aviadenovirus, posing a persistent and economically significant threat to commercial poultry operations worldwide [8, 22, 46]. These non-enveloped, icosahedral viruses harbor a linear, double-stranded DNA genome typically ranging from 43 to 45 kilobase pairs in length, a structural and genomic architecture that underpins their environmental stability and capacity for both horizontal and vertical transmission [8, 10, 22]. The diseases attributable to FAdV infection are diverse and often severe, encompassing inclusion body hepatitis (IBH), hepatitis-hydropericardium syndrome (HHS), gizzard erosion (GE), and, less commonly, proventriculitis and tenosynovitis [2, 3, 8, 26, 46]. The collective economic impact of these conditions is staggering, resulting in elevated mortality, decreased feed conversion, and substantial losses in both broiler and layer operations, a concern recognized by international health organizations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) as a significant impediment to global food security and poultry welfare [1, 4, 8, 41]. The ubiquitous nature of FAdVs, frequently isolated from both clinically ill and apparently healthy birds, underscores the complexity of their pathogenesis, which is heavily influenced by viral serotype, host age, immune status, and the presence of concomitant immunosuppressive infections [8, 50].

Taxonomic Classification Within the Aviadenovirus Genus

The taxonomic framework for FAdVs is rooted in the classical demarcation of Group I avian adenoviruses, which are distinguished from the non-pathogenic Group II (turkey hemorrhagic enteritis virus) and Group III (egg drop syndrome virus) by their antigenic properties and genetic makeup [8]. Within Group I, classification has undergone significant refinement, transitioning from a serotype-based system grounded in cross-neutralization tests to a more robust species-level taxonomy informed by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis and, most definitively, comprehensive genotyping of the major capsid protein, hexon [7, 17, 50]. This molecular approach has delineated five distinct species: Fowl aviadenovirus A (FAdV-A), Fowl aviadenovirus B (FAdV-B), Fowl aviadenovirus C (FAdV-C), Fowl aviadenovirus D (FAdV-D), and Fowl aviadenovirus E (FAdV-E) [7, 17, 46, 50]. These species encompass a total of 12 recognized serotypes (FAdV-1 to -11, with serotype 8 further subdivided into 8a and 8b), each with a characteristic disease profile and host range [7, 8, 15, 46].

Specifically, FAdV-1 (the sole member of species A) is the primary etiological agent of adenoviral gizzard erosion (AGE), a condition increasingly reported in broiler flocks that leads to impaired digestion and poor performance [2, 3, 26, 47]. Species B is represented by a single serotype, FAdV-5, which is less frequently associated with clinical disease [7, 38]. Species C, comprised solely of FAdV-4, is the archetypal cause of the highly lethal HHS, a disease marked by severe hepatitis and the accumulation of straw-colored fluid in the pericardial sac (hydropericardium) [22, 32, 33]. Species D (serotypes FAdV-2, -3, -6, -7, -9, -10, -11) and Species E (serotypes FAdV-8a and -8b) are overwhelmingly the most diverse and globally prevalent, predominantly linked to outbreaks of IBH [7, 12, 15, 19, 29, 35]. Recent genomic investigations, however, have blurred these traditional boundaries; for instance, FAdV-8b (species E) has been demonstrated capable of inducing HHS in broiler chickens, a pathology classically attributed only to FAdV-4, highlighting the dynamic nature of FAdV pathogenesis [12]. Furthermore, the distinction between serotypes within these species is often subtle, with FAdV-2 and FAdV-11 (both within species D) forming a closely related group frequently reported as the predominant IBH-causing serotypes in many regions, including Egypt, India, and Brazil [16, 19, 20, 35].

Genomic Architecture and Molecular Determinants of Diversity

The FAdV genome is a highly organized entity containing multiple overlapping open reading frames (ORFs) and conserved gene blocks. Central to the virus’s biology is the hexon gene, which encodes the major capsid protein and is the primary target for serotyping and phylogenetic analyses [15, 18, 28]. The hexon protein contains several hypervariable regions (HVRs), particularly within its loop domains (L1 and L2), where significant amino acid substitutions accumulate, driving antigenic diversity and enabling immune evasion [7, 18]. This genetic plasticity is exemplified by the specificity of monoclonal antibodies developed to differentiate highly pathogenic FAdV-4 (HP-FAdV-4) from low-pathogenicity strains, with a single arginine residue at position 188 (188R) in the hexon being a critical epitope for such discrimination [14]. Similarly, fiber proteins (Fiber-1 and Fiber-2) and the penton base constitute the other major capsid components, with the fiber knob domains being crucial for receptor binding, host cell tropism, and the induction of neutralizing antibodies [25, 28, 42]. The fiber-2 protein, in particular, has been identified as a dominant immunogen and the primary target for numerous subunit vaccine candidates [9, 25, 31, 43].

Beyond structural proteins, several non-structural ORFs contribute to virulence and pathogenesis. A defining feature of the hypervirulent FAdV-4 strains that emerged in China around 2015 is a characteristic 1966-base pair deletion encompassing ORF19 and ORF27 [44, 48]. The presence or absence of this deletion, along with specific amino acid signatures in the fiber-2 protein (e.g., G219D, P307A, V319I), segregates highly pathogenic from apathogenic strains, providing compelling evidence for a molecular basis of virulence [6, 44, 48]. The recent discovery of a novel FAdV-4 strain (HNU-XXY-2019) possessing a genome intermediate in size and features between classic traditional strains and the modern 1966-del strains suggests an evolutionary continuum, offering unique insights into the genesis of these hypervirulent variants [44]. In species E, recombination events between FAdV-8a and FAdV-8b have generated novel recombinant strains, such as HN1472, which exhibit enhanced pathogenicity and altered tissue tropism, further complicating the epidemiological landscape [27]. Genomic mosaicism has also been documented in rare isolates like FAdV-3, reinforcing the notion that recombination plays a substantial role in FAdV evolution and the emergence of novel pathotypes [11].

Global Distribution and Epidemiological Context

FAdVs are endemic in virtually all poultry-producing regions, and their prevalence is shaped by intensive farming practices, biosecurity lapses, and the movement of breeding stock [3, 8, 50]. Epidemiological surveys consistently demonstrate that all five species and multiple serotypes co-circulate within a single geographic area. For instance, in Brazil, a major cross-sectional study identified FAdV-A (serotype 1), FAdV-D (serotypes 2, 9, 11), and FAdV-E (serotypes 6, 8a, 8b) as prevalent, with a positivity rate of 25.5% in flocks displaying suggestive clinical signs [3, 7]. In South Korea, surveillance efforts from 2021 to 2023 revealed that FAdV-11/D, FAdV-5/B, and FAdV-8b/E were the most frequently detected strains on broiler farms, with a high overall farm-level prevalence of 44.1% [5]. Similarly, comprehensive studies in China have documented the presence of all 12 serotypes, even in apparently healthy birds, with serotype 1 being the most common in clinically normal populations [50]. However, during outbreaks of IBH and HHS, the spectrum narrows, with FAdV-4, FAdV-8b, and FAdV-11 emerging as the dominant serotypes responsible for disease [49].

The epidemiological picture is further complicated by the potential for FAdV to infect a broad range of avian species beyond chickens. Reports of FAdV detection and associated disease in ducks, geese, and even wild birds (notably black-necked cranes) are increasingly common, underscoring the potential for inter-species transmission and the role of wild waterfowl as reservoirs [6, 45, 50]. The ability of waterfowl strains to act as sources of infection for chickens, or vice versa, remains an area of active investigation with significant implications for biosecurity [45]. Co-infection with other poultry pathogens is a hallmark of FAdV-associated field outbreaks, dramatically exacerbating clinical outcomes. For instance, concurrent infection with chicken infectious anemia virus (CIAV) potentiates FAdV-8b infection, leading to higher mortality and altered tissue tropism [1]. Similarly, co-infection of FAdV-1 and FAdV-4 was shown to synergistically enhance FAdV-4 replication via heat shock protein A2 (HSPA2) upregulation, resulting in a 21-fold increase in viral load and an elevated mortality rate of 87.5% [13]. The presence of multiple FAdV serotypes, along with other immunosuppressive agents like infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) or avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV), creates a complex disease picture where attribution of mortality to a single agent is often inaccurate [5, 34].

The molecular characterization of FAdV has progressed from simple serotyping to sophisticated high-resolution melting (HRM) assays, multiplex PCR systems, and CRISPR-based detection platforms capable of simultaneously discriminating among all five species [17, 21, 23, 30]. These advanced tools are essential for monitoring the dynamic shifts in serotype prevalence, such as the recent dominance of FAdV-2/11 in Egyptian broilers [19] or the emergence of FAdV-8b as a primary cause of IBH in Malaysia and Bangladesh [29, 39, 40]. The ability to rapidly and accurately identify circulating strains is paramount for formulating effective autogenous and commercial vaccines, which must be updated periodically to reflect the dominant serotypes within a given region [24, 36, 37].

Molecular Pathogenesis and Viral Replication

The molecular pathogenesis of Fowl Adenovirus (FAdV) is a multifaceted process involving intricate virus-host interactions at the cellular and systemic levels. As non-enveloped, double-stranded DNA viruses with genomes ranging from 43 to 45 kb, FAdVs belonging to the genus Aviadenovirus within the family Adenoviridae employ a finely tuned strategy to hijack host cellular machinery, subvert innate immune defenses, and establish productive infection [8, 10]. The five species (FAdV-A through FAdV-E) and twelve serotypes exhibit differential tissue tropism and virulence, with FAdV-4 (species C) causing highly fatal hepatitis-hydropericardium syndrome (HHS), while FAdV-8b and FAdV-11 (species E and D, respectively) are primarily associated with inclusion body hepatitis (IBH) [5, 7, 35]. Understanding the molecular determinants of these pathogenic differences is critical for developing effective control strategies, particularly given the substantial economic losses reported globally and the recognition of FAdV as a significant pathogen by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH).

Viral Attachment, Entry, and Cellular Tropism

The initial step in FAdV infection is the attachment of viral capsid proteins to host cell receptors, a process primarily mediated by the fiber proteins. FAdV-4 uniquely possesses two distinct fiber proteins, Fiber-1 and Fiber-2, which play specialized roles in viral entry and pathogenesis [42, 51]. The knob domain of Fiber-1, spanning amino acids 211–412, has been demonstrated to be essential for viral replication, and its overexpression in Leghorn male hepatoma (LMH) cells significantly inhibits FAdV-4 replication by modulating innate immune pathways, including the PI3K-Akt, MAPK, and Toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling cascades [42]. This suggests that Fiber-1 is not merely a structural component but actively influences the cellular environment to favor viral propagation. Conversely, Fiber-2 is considered a primary determinant of virulence and a key immunogen. Comparative analysis of highly pathogenic and non-pathogenic FAdV-4 strains has identified critical amino acid residues in Fiber-2, such as positions 219 and 380, which correlate with virulence [48]. Specifically, the G219D and A380T substitutions are conserved among hypervirulent Chinese isolates, whereas non-pathogenic strains like KR5 and ON1 retain the ancestral residues, implicating these sites in receptor binding or post-entry signaling [48]. Furthermore, a 1966-base pair deletion encompassing ORF19 and ORF27 in highly pathogenic Chinese FAdV-4 strains is linked to increased virulence, and a novel intermediate strain (HNU-XXY-2019) lacking this deletion but possessing unique Fiber-2 substitutions exhibits moderate pathogenicity, indicating that virulence is multigenic [44].

Tissue tropism is stringently controlled by fiber-receptor interactions. FAdV-4 exhibits a predilection for hepatocytes, lymphoid tissues, and, notably, kidney epithelial cells. Recent studies have demonstrated that hypervirulent FAdV-4 can hijack autophagosome-like vesicles for cell-to-cell transmission within kidney tissues, a mechanism that bypasses traditional receptor-mediated entry and cloaks the virus from extracellular immune surveillance [55]. This novel mode of dissemination was evidenced by the colocalization of viral structural protein Fiber-2 with the autophagy marker LC3B and the exosome marker CD63 in kidney cells at 24 hours post-infection (hpi), suggesting that the virus exploits the host’s own membrane trafficking pathways for intercellular spread [55]. For other serotypes like FAdV-8b, the fiber protein is also a key virulence determinant; CRISPR/Cas9-mediated modification of the fiber gene in FAdV-8b (UPMT27) resulted in delayed nuclear localization and reduced pathogenicity in chicken embryo liver cells (CELs), with a consistent Y179D substitution observed in attenuated passages [58]. This highlights that the temporal and spatial dynamics of fiber-mediated entry and nuclear trafficking are critical for establishing a fulminant infection.

Genome Replication and Transcriptional Programming

Following entry, the viral core is transported to the nucleus where replication occurs. FAdV encodes a suite of proteins essential for genome replication, including DNA polymerase and the preterminal protein (pTP), which serves as a primer for DNA synthesis. Genomic analysis of FAdV-11 strain FJSW/2021 revealed a unique six-amino-acid insertion (S-L-R-I-I-C) in the pTP between residues 470 and 475, along with a L476F mutation, which may contribute to the enhanced pathogenicity observed in this isolate compared to the Canadian non-pathogenic ON NP2 strain [59]. The replication strategy involves the formation of viral replication compartments within the nucleus, where viral DNA is replicated via a strand-displacement mechanism. The reverse genetics system developed for FAdV-4 and FAdV-8b has enabled precise manipulation of the genome, allowing investigators to interrogate the functional significance of individual open reading frames (ORFs). For instance, substitution of ORF0-1-2 in FAdV-8b with a green fluorescent protein reporter gene reduced viral replication efficiency, whereas substitution of ORF11 unexpectedly promoted replication, indicating that these genes encode proteins that modulate the replicative cycle in opposing manners [10, 61].

Transcriptional regulation is tightly controlled temporally, with immediate early, early, intermediate, and late phases. The hexon protein, the most abundant capsid component, is a late gene product that undergoes complex processing. Using tandem affinity purification and mass spectrometry (TAP/MS) in LMH cells, 82 host proteins interacting with the FAdV-4 hexon were identified, including chaperonin-containing TCP-1 subunits (CCT5, CCT7) and heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) [52]. Functional validation revealed that CCT5 overexpression inhibits FAdV-4 replication, while blocking CCT5 enhances viral titers, suggesting that the virus may sequester these molecular chaperones to facilitate proper hexon folding or to dysregulate host protein homeostasis [52]. The penton base protein, another major capsid component, has also been implicated in inducing autophagy during the viral invasion phase. Transcriptomic analysis during FAdV-4 entry identified 1,135 differentially expressed genes (DEGs), with enrichment in the AMPK-mTOR signaling pathway, a master regulator of autophagy. The penton protein was identified as the key viral trigger for AMPK-mTOR-mediated autophagy, which in turn facilitates viral invasion [56]. Inhibition of autophagy markedly impaired FAdV-4 entry, underscoring a paradigm where the virus actively co-opts a catabolic host process to promote its own internalization.

Modulation of Host Cell Death Pathways: Apoptosis and Autophagy

FAdV infection induces profound perturbations in host cell survival pathways, and the interplay between apoptosis and autophagy is central to pathogenesis. In the context of FAdV-4 infection in the liver, oxidative stress is a critical driver of hepatocellular damage. Infected livers exhibit significantly elevated levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), and superoxide dismutase (SOD), alongside mitochondrial damage characterized by fractured outer membranes and cytochrome c (Cyt C) release into the cytoplasm [53]. This mitochondrial dysfunction activates the intrinsic apoptotic cascade, leading to a marked increase in apoptotic hepatocytes at 4 days post-infection (dpi), as quantified by TUNEL assays [53]. The antioxidant quercetin was shown to mitigate these effects, reducing viral load and oxidative damage, which confirms that oxidative stress is not merely a consequence of infection but a pathogenic mechanism that amplifies tissue injury [53].

Autophagy, in contrast, serves a dual role. As noted, during the invasion phase, FAdV-4 induces autophagy via AMPK-mTOR to enhance entry [56]. However, at later stages of infection, particularly in the spleen and kidney, complete autophagic flux is induced to support viral replication. In the spleen at 24 hpi, infection with hypervirulent FAdV-4 upregulates LC3B, Beclin1, and ATG5, while downregulating SQSTM1/p62, indicating robust autophagic degradation [60]. The colocalization of Fiber-2 with LC3B in splenocytes confirms that autophagosomes are actively co-opted as replication scaffolds [60]. In the kidney, autophagosome-like vesicles encapsulating viral particles facilitate cell-to-cell transmission, a strategy that may protect virions from neutralizing antibodies and allow the virus to spread without lysing the host cell [55]. This balance between apoptosis and autophagy, where early autophagy promotes infection and late-stage apoptosis contributes to tissue necrosis and clinical disease, is a hallmark of FAdV pathogenesis.

Evasion of Innate Immunity and Interserotype Synergy

The host innate immune system, particularly the type I interferon (IFN) response, represents a formidable barrier to viral replication. FAdV-4 has evolved sophisticated mechanisms to antagonize this response. A functional screen identified three FAdV-4 proteins with IFN-β antagonistic activity, among which the unique nonstructural protein ORF1B exhibited the most potent effect. Mechanistically, ORF1B binds directly to interferon regulatory factor 7 (IRF7) and prevents its nuclear translocation, thereby blocking the transcriptional activation of IFN-β [54]. The importance of IRF7 is underscored by the observation that ectopic expression of IRF7 inhibits FAdV-4 replication, while knockdown of IRF7 enhances viral growth [54]. This represents a targeted immune evasion strategy that operates downstream of pattern recognition receptor activation. In contrast to FAdV-4, FAdV-8b infection elicits a distinct temporal host response. Transcriptomic profiling of FAdV-8b-infected chicken livers revealed a three-phase disease progression: early viral incubation and replication (0–2 dpi), a peak of metabolic hijacking (3–5 dpi), and sustained immune regulation (6–7 dpi) [57]. The progressive reduction in DEGs over time (from 9,146 at 2 dpi to 3,800 at 7 dpi) suggests that the virus actively suppresses host transcription as infection advances [57].

The innate immune response is also cell-type dependent. Comparative transcriptomics of FAdV-4-infected LMH cells and chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEFs) revealed that LMH cells, despite supporting more efficient viral replication, mount a blunted interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) response compared to CEFs [62]. Knockdown of cytosolic DNA sensing molecules (e.g., cGAS) in LMH cells further enhanced FAdV-4 replication, indicating that these cells rely on this pathway for antiviral defense, yet the virus partially disarms it [62]. At the systemic level, hypervirulent FAdV-4 triggers a robust early innate response in the spleen, characterized by activation of TLR3, TLR7, TLR21, MDA5, and cGAS within 24 hpi, leading to NF-κB and TBK1/IRF7-dependent production of inflammatory cytokines and type I IFNs [60]. This early response is insufficient to control viral dissemination, and the virus ultimately induces fatal immunopathology.

Intriguingly, interserotype interactions can exacerbate pathogenesis. Co-infection with FAdV-1 (species A) and FAdV-4 results in a synergistic increase in FAdV-4 replication, up to 21-fold, in LMH cells, leading to 87.5% mortality in chickens compared to 70.8% for FAdV-4 alone [13]. Transcriptomic analysis identified heat shock protein A2 (HSPA2) as the most significantly upregulated gene during co-infection (2.8-fold increase). Knockdown of HSPA2 reduced FAdV-4 replication, establishing that FAdV-1 potentiates FAdV-4 through HSPA2-mediated host modulation [13]. Similarly, co-infection with chicken infectious anemia virus (CIAV) and FAdV-8b alters viral tissue distribution and increases mortality, suggesting that other immunosuppressive agents can broaden FAdV tropism and enhance replication [1]. These findings have profound implications for field epidemiology, where concurrent infections are common.

Virulence Determinants and Genetic Mosaicism

The molecular basis of FAdV virulence is encoded in multiple genomic loci. For FAdV-4, the hexon protein itself harbors serotype- and virulence-specific epitopes. A monoclonal antibody (mAb 2C5) was shown to specifically recognize the ¹⁸⁵GPGRNP¹⁹⁰ motif, with arginine at position 188 (188R) being the critical discriminator between highly pathogenic (HP) and low pathogenic (LP) FAdV-4 strains [14]. This finding enabled the development of a sandwich ELISA capable of efficiently differentiating HP-FAdV-4 from LP-FAdV-4, which is crucial for surveillance in endemic regions [14]. The Fiber-2 protein is another major virulence determinant; recombinant viruses where the hexon from a pathogenic strain was replaced with that of a nonpathogenic strain produced a highly attenuated virus with low pathogenicity in 21-day-old SPF chickens, confirming the hexon’s role in pathogenicity [10].

Among FAdV species D and E, genetic mosaicism contributes to viral diversity and emergence. Recombination analysis of a novel FAdV-8b strain (HN1472) revealed that it is a recombinant between FAdV-8a and FAdV-8b, with significant genetic divergence in the hexon, fiber, and ORF19 genes [27]. This recombinant caused 80% mortality in SPF chickens and exhibited broad tissue distribution, particularly in the liver and gizzard [27]. Similarly, whole-genome analysis of a rare FAdV-3 isolate demonstrated a mosaic genomic structure, underscoring the role of recombination in generating new serotypes and strains with altered pathogenic potential [11]. The hypervariable regions (HVRs) of the hexon loop 1 are hotspots for amino acid substitution. In Brazilian isolates, specific substitutions in HVR1-4 enabled discrimination between closely related serotypes like FAdV-8a and FAdV-8b, and 3D modeling of FAdV-2 versus FAdV-11 hexon proteins revealed that substitutions in HVRs alter loop polarity and flexibility, potentially affecting antigenicity and receptor binding [7, 20]. At the codon usage level, analysis of relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) in FAdV isolates from Iraq showed a bias towards codons for alanine, glycine, proline, arginine, and serine, suggesting that mutational pressure and natural selection shape the virus’s translational efficiency and, consequently, its fitness and pathogenicity [18].

In summary, the molecular pathogenesis of FAdV is driven by a complex interplay of viral structural and nonstructural proteins that orchestrate host cell entry, genome replication, and immune evasion. The differential expression of virulence factors like Fiber-2, the ability to modulate autophagy and apoptosis, and the capacity for genetic recombination and synergy with coinfecting pathogens collectively determine the outcome of infection. These insights, derived from cutting-edge reverse genetics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, not only illuminate fundamental virology but also pave the way for rationally designed vaccines and antiviral interventions.

Clinical Syndromes: Inclusion Body Hepatitis and Gizzard Erosion

Fowl adenoviruses (FAdVs) are ubiquitous pathogens of domestic poultry, yet their clinical expression is highly contingent upon viral serotype, virulence determinants, host age, immune status, and the presence of concomitant immunosuppressive agents. Among the myriad of conditions attributed to FAdV infection, two clinically and economically distinct syndromes, Inclusion Body Hepatitis (IBH) and Adenoviral Gizzard Erosion (AGE), stand as the most frequently encountered manifestations in commercial poultry operations worldwide. Critically, these two conditions are not mutually exclusive; epidemiological data increasingly demonstrate that concurrent gizzard erosion and IBH can occur within the same flock, driven by specific serotypes or mixed infections, complicating both diagnosis and control [3, 26, 47]. This section provides an exhaustive, mechanistic analysis of these two overlapping yet distinct clinical syndromes.

Inclusion Body Hepatitis: Pathogenesis, Spectrum, and Host Interactions

Inclusion Body Hepatitis is a classical and frequently devastating disease of young broiler chickens, typically affecting birds between 3 and 6 weeks of age, though outbreaks in younger chicks and even adult layers are documented [49, 69]. The hallmark of IBH is an acute, necrotizing hepatitis characterized histopathologically by the presence of large, basophilic or eosinophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies within degenerating hepatocytes, a pathognomonic lesion that gives the syndrome its name [8, 66, 69]. The etiological agents are distributed across multiple FAdV species, predominantly FAdV-D (serotypes 2, 3, 11) and FAdV-E (serotypes 6, 7, 8a, 8b), although IBH has also been associated with FAdV-A (serotype 1) in some epidemiological contexts, particularly when co-infections are involved [5, 11, 15, 19, 35]. FAdV-4, typically the causative agent of Hepatitis-Hydropericardium Syndrome (HHS), can also induce IBH-like lesions, and the distinction between HHS and severe IBH is often blurred where pericardial effusion is present alongside hepatic necrosis [12, 41, 63]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes IBH as a significant contributor to economic losses in the global poultry sector, particularly when compounded by secondary bacterial infections or management stressors.

The pathogenesis of IBH begins with viral entry, predominantly via the oral route. The virus initially replicates within the intestinal epithelium, a critical first step that can influence subsequent systemic dissemination [64]. From the gut, the virus spreads via the bloodstream to target organs, with a pronounced tropism for the liver, though viral nucleic acid can be detected in the spleen, kidney, bone marrow, bursa of Fabricius, and cecal tonsils within hours to days of infection [65, 67, 68]. The hepatocyte is the primary target cell. Histopathological examination reveals coagulative necrosis of hepatocytes, often in a multifocal pattern, with the presence of large basophilic or amphophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies that marginate the chromatin. These inclusion bodies represent massive viral factories where virions are assembled [20, 66, 69]. The hepatic architecture is disrupted by fatty infiltration, periportal mononuclear cell infiltration, and subacute hepatitis. Clinically, affected birds present with sudden onset depression, inappetence, ruffled feathers, and a crouching posture before succumbing to acute hepatic failure. Mortality rates are highly variable, typically ranging from 10% to 30%, but can spike to 48% or higher in naïve flocks or when exacerbated by immunosuppressive co-infections [49, 67, 69]. Macroscopically, the liver is grossly enlarged, friable, and pale, often with a mottled appearance due to multifocal hemorrhages and areas of coagulative necrosis [20, 29, 65].

A critical determinant of IBH severity is the host's immune status. Immunosuppression, induced by concurrent infections with Chicken Infectious Anemia Virus (CIAV), Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV), or Reovirus, dramatically potentiates FAdV virulence. Co-infection with CIAV and FAdV serotype E8b, for instance, results in significantly higher clinical scores and mortality rates compared to FAdV infection alone [1]. This synergy is attributed to CIAV’s ability to deplete T-cell precursors, thereby crippling the adaptive immune response required to control FAdV replication. Similarly, the presence of variant IBDV or infectious bronchitis virus in co-infected flocks has a more deleterious effect on poultry productivity than single-agent infections, underscoring the multifactorial nature of IBH outbreaks [5]. The virus itself contributes to immune evasion. FAdV serotype 4, for example, deploys the ORF1B protein to suppress type I interferon production by inhibiting IRF7 nuclear translocation, a mechanism that facilitates unchecked viral replication during the critical early phase of infection [54]. This interplay between viral immune evasion and host immunosuppression is a central tenet of IBH pathogenesis.

Metabolic disturbances are profound in IBH. Serum biochemistry reveals marked elevations in markers of hepatic and muscle damage, including aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), reflecting severe hepatocellular necrosis [53, 65]. Concurrently, infected birds often exhibit anemia, with elevated creatine kinase levels indicative of muscle damage, likely secondary to the catabolic state induced by the infection [65]. The liver damage is mediated, in part, by oxidative stress. During FAdV-4 infection, there is a significant increase in reactive oxygen species, including H₂O₂ and malondialdehyde (MDA), within hepatocyte mitochondria, leading to mitochondrial membrane fracture, Cyt C release, and subsequent activation of the apoptotic cascade [53]. This oxidative damage is both a consequence of viral replication and a driver of pathology, as it overwhelms the endogenous antioxidant capacity, as evidenced by reduced GSH-Px and SOD activities in infected livers [53]. The role of autophagy is also emerging as a double-edged sword. In the spleen, hypervirulent FAdV-4 infection promotes complete autophagy (characterized by LC3B, Beclin1, and ATG5 upregulation with SQSTM1/p62 degradation), which the virus hijacks to enhance its own replication [60]. In the kidney, similar autophagic processes facilitate cell-to-cell transmission of viral particles via autophagosome-like vesicles, contributing to the multi-organ tropism observed in severe cases [55].

Adenoviral Gizzard Erosion: Clinical Presentation and Etiological Specificity

Adenoviral Gizzard Erosion (AGE) is a clinically distinct syndrome primarily associated with Fowl Adenovirus Serotype 1 (FAdV-1), classified under species FAdV-A [2, 50]. However, recent epidemiological surveys have increasingly implicated other serotypes, including FAdV-8b, FAdV-11, and FAdV-8a, in cases of gizzard erosion, particularly when detected alongside IBH or in birds exhibiting feed passage syndrome [3, 26, 47]. This broadening of etiological scope suggests that multiple FAdV species can induce damage to the koilin layer, depending on strain-specific virulence factors and host susceptibility. Indeed, FAdV serotype 8b strain HN1472, a recombinant strain derived from FAdV-8a and FAdV-8b, was found to have a higher concentration of viral nucleic acid in the gizzard tissue at 3 days post-challenge, directly linking this serotype to gizzard pathology [27].

The pathogenesis of AGE is centered on direct viral cytopathic damage to the koilin membrane, the protective proteinaceous lining of the gizzard. Macroscopically, affected gizzards appear flaccid with moderate to severe erosions, fissuring, and sloughing of the koilin layer, often exposing the underlying mucosal epithelium [26, 47]. Histopathologically, while the liver may show concurrent IBH lesions, the gizzard tissue itself may demonstrate necrosis of the glandular epithelium, inflammation, and, in some cases, intranuclear inclusion bodies in the epithelial cells [67]. The functional consequence of this erosion is a profound impact on gastrointestinal health and nutrient absorption. Clinically, AGE manifests not as a high-mortality event, but as a production-limiting condition characterized by feed passage syndrome, the excretion of poorly digested feed particles in the feces, resulting in poor feed conversion ratios, reduced body weight gain, and overall flock unevenness [26, 47]. In affected flocks, the incidence of gizzard erosion can reach 52.78%, as documented in studies from Bangladesh and Southern India, underscoring its role as a subclinical drain on productivity [26, 47].

The clinical distinction between pure IBH and AGE is critical for diagnostic and intervention strategies. While IBH can present with acute mortality and overt hepatic necrosis, AGE is often insidious, presenting as chronic poor performance. However, the two syndromes frequently coexist. In South Korean surveillance, FAdV was detected in 44.1% of farms, but only 13.8% had histologically confirmed IBH, suggesting that many subclinical or atypical infections, potentially including AGE, go undiagnosed [5]. The presence of gizzard erosion was significantly associated with FAdV infection (OR = 8.20) and, to a lesser extent, with liver lesions (OR = 4.28), indicating that FAdV is a primary driver of both pathologies [3]. Furthermore, the co-occurrence of mild coccidiosis or bacterial dysbacteriosis with FAdV-induced gizzard erosion exacerbates the feed passage syndrome, creating a complex polymicrobial disease that challenges poultry health management [47]. The economic impact of AGE is thus substantial, not through direct mortality but through increased feed costs and extended time to market weight, factors that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) acknowledges as significant threats to sustainable poultry production.

Host-Virus Interactions and Co-infection Dynamics

The pathogenesis of fowl adenovirus (FAdV) is fundamentally governed by a complex and multifactorial interplay between viral determinants of virulence and the host's intrinsic defense architecture. This interplay is further complicated by the frequent occurrence of co-infections with other avian pathogens, which can profoundly alter disease outcomes, tissue tropism, and viral shedding dynamics. Understanding these intricate host-virus interactions and the synergistic or antagonistic effects of co-infections is critical for elucidating the molecular basis of FAdV-induced diseases, including inclusion body hepatitis (IBH), hepatitis-hydropericardium syndrome (HHS), and gizzard erosion, and for devising rational control strategies.

Molecular Mechanisms of Viral Subversion and Host Defense

At the cellular level, FAdV infection triggers a cascade of signaling events that the virus actively manipulates to establish a productive infection. The host cell, in turn, deploys a range of intrinsic and innate immune mechanisms to limit viral replication. The balance of these forces dictates the severity of tissue damage and clinical outcome.

Cellular Entry, Autophagy, and Metabolic Hijacking. The initial stages of infection are characterized by viral entry, which is mediated by the fiber proteins. The penton base protein of FAdV-4 has been identified as a key inducer of autophagy via the AMPK-mTOR signaling pathway during the viral invasion phase. This induction is not merely a collateral effect; rather, FAdV-4 hijacks the autophagic machinery to facilitate its own entry into host cells. Pharmacological inhibition of autophagy markedly impairs viral invasion, while its activation significantly enhances it [56]. The importance of autophagy is further underscored in vivo. In the spleen, hypervirulent FAdV-4 infection elicits a complete autophagy response, characterized by the upregulation of LC3B, Beclin1, and ATG5, coupled with the degradation of SQSTM1/p62. Crucially, the colocalization of the viral structural protein Fiber2 with LC3B suggests that FAdV-4-induced autophagy actively promotes viral replication within the host [60]. This pro-viral role of autophagy extends to other target organs. In kidney cells, FAdV-4 infection enhances autophagic flux, leading to the formation of autophagosome-like vesicles that appear to mediate cell-to-cell transmission of viral particles. This vesicle-mediated transport, involving the colocalization of Fiber2 with LC3B and the exosomal marker CD63, represents a novel mechanism for immune evasion and viral dissemination [55]. Beyond entry and spread, FAdV-4 profoundly disrupts host cell metabolism. Transcriptomic profiling of FAdV-8b-infected livers revealed a temporal pattern of disease progression where major metabolite hijacking occurs between 3 and 5 days post-infection (dpi), followed by a constant regulation of immune response at later time points. This metabolic reprogramming is a hallmark of FAdV pathogenesis [57]. The resultant oxidative stress, particularly in the liver, is a critical driver of pathology. FAdV-4 infection induces significant mitochondrial damage, leading to increased levels of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) and malondialdehyde (MDA) while depleting antioxidant defenses like superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px). This oxidative insult triggers the release of cytochrome C into the cytoplasm and drives hepatocyte apoptosis, directly contributing to the hepatitis characteristic of the disease [53].

Subversion of Innate Immunity: Interferon Antagonism and Inflammatory Signaling. To establish a foothold, FAdVs have evolved sophisticated strategies to evade the host's first line of defense, the interferon (IFN) system. The FAdV-4 unique nonstructural protein ORF1B has been identified as a potent antagonist of type I interferon production. ORF1B achieves this by targeting interferon regulatory factor 7 (IRF7). Specifically, it interacts with IRF7 to inhibit its nuclear translocation, thereby blocking the downstream activation of the IFN-β promoter [54]. This is a critical immune evasion tactic, as ectopic expression of IRF7 potently suppresses FAdV-4 replication. In contrast, the host counters with interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs). A comprehensive RNA-Seq analysis identified 482 type I and 107 type III ISGs with potential anti-FAdV-4 activity. Among these, interferon alpha inducible protein 6 (IFI6) was identified as a potent inhibitor; its overexpression significantly suppresses FAdV-4 replication, while its knockdown enhances viral propagation [70]. This antiviral state is further influenced by cellular metabolites. For instance, butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid, was shown to modulate the host response in Leghorn male hepatoma (LMH) cells by restoring the expression of genes in metabolic pathways like PPAR and dampening the expression of the antiviral molecule Oasl, suggesting a nuanced role in shaping the antiviral environment [71].

The innate immune response is also highly cell-type specific. While FAdV-4 replicates more efficiently in LMH cells (a hepatocyte line), it provokes a limited interferon-stimulated gene induction in this cell type. Conversely, in chicken embryo fibroblast (CEF) cells, FAdV-4 infection triggers a robust antiviral response characterized by the upregulation of cytosolic DNA sensing pathways and ISGs [62]. Furthermore, FAdV-4 triggers a potent inflammatory response, particularly in cardiac tissue, via the activation of the PI3K/Akt and IκBα/NF-κB signaling pathways. This activation leads to the significant upregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α, contributing to inflammatory injury [72]. The subsequent tissue damage is severe; in the liver, FAdV-8b infection causes marked anemia, elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and extensive necrosis with basophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies, confirming the direct cytopathic effect of the virus [65]. The hexon protein itself is a central hub for host-pathogen interactions. Tandem affinity purification and mass spectrometry identified 82 hexon-associated host proteins involved in the cell cycle, endocytosis, and the phagosome. For example, the chaperonin CCT5 interacts with hexon and inhibits viral replication, representing a host restriction factor [52].

Co-infection Dynamics: Synergy, Immunosuppression, and Altered Pathogenesis

In the field, FAdVs rarely act alone. Co-infections with other immunosuppressive or enteric pathogens are the norm rather than the exception, and these interactions can dramatically alter the trajectory of disease. The most clinically significant interactions involve chicken infectious anemia virus (CIAV), avian reovirus (ARV), astrovirus (CAstV), and various serotypes of FAdV itself.

The Synergistic Catastrophe of FAdV and CIAV. The co-infection of FAdV with CIAV represents a particularly severe threat to poultry health. CIAV is a potent immunosuppressive agent, and its presence can exacerbate FAdV-induced mortality to an extraordinary degree. Experimental co-infection of specific pathogen-free (SPF) chickens with FAdV serotype E8b (FAdV E8b) and CIAV resulted in significantly higher clinical scores and mortality rates compared to infection with FAdV E8b alone. Critically, co-infection altered the tissue distribution of FAdV E8b, indicating that CIAV-induced immunosuppression changes the virus's systemic spread and tropism [1]. This is corroborated by epidemiological data from China, which found that poultry in Yunnan Province were frequently co-infected with FAdV-4, CIAV, infectious laryngotracheitis, and avian influenza virus, highlighting the complexity of the pathogen landscape [6].

Interserotype Synergy and the HSPA2 Connection. Co-infection is not limited to unrelated viruses; different serotypes of FAdV can also interact synergistically. A landmark study documented, for the first time, the co-infection of FAdV-1 and FAdV-4 in Chinese layer flocks. This co-infection led to a staggering 87.5% mortality in SPF chickens, which was 16.7% higher than that caused by either virus alone. The molecular basis of this synergy was uncovered using in vitro models, which showed that both viruses could replicate concurrently within the same LMH cell, a previously unreported phenomenon. Transcriptomic profiling identified heat shock protein A2 (HSPA2) as the most differentially expressed gene during co-infection, which was upregulated 2.8-fold compared to FAdV-4 alone. Functional validation confirmed that FAdV-1 potentiates FAdV-4 replication through this HSPA2-mediated host modulation, establishing a novel, non-immunosuppressive mechanism for interserotype viral cooperation [13].

Immunosuppression by FAdV-8b and Predisposition to Secondary Infections. Some FAdV serotypes are themselves directly immunosuppressive, creating a permissive environment for other pathogens. FAdV-8b infection in SPF chickens causes severe lesions and high viral loads in the bursa of Fabricius, spleen, and thymus. This is coupled with a dramatic suppression of the humoral immune response, as measured by antibody production against a concurrently administered Newcastle disease virus (NDV) vaccine. The infected birds also exhibit growth retardation and reduced villus-to-crypt ratios in the duodenum, indicating compromised gut health. This dual insult of growth impairment and immunosuppression highlights how a primary FAdV-8b infection can predispose birds to secondary bacterial or viral challenges, such as colibacillosis [73]. The practical consequence of this is observed in field settings. During nationwide surveillance in South Korea, farms with co-infections of three or more diseases (e.g., IBH, variant IBDV, and infectious bronchitis) had a significantly more deleterious effect on poultry productivity than farms with single infections, underscoring the economic impact of compounded immunosuppression [5].

Epidemiological Signatures of Co-infection. The global epidemiological landscape is rich with examples of FAdV co-infections. In Brazilian poultry flocks, FAdV is frequently detected alongside astrovirus and avian reovirus. In these cases, single-agent infections were actually more common than co-infections, yet the presence of ARV was strongly associated with leg problems (OR = 5.33), and mixed infections of FAdV and ARV had an even stronger association (OR = 10.60). Similarly, gizzard erosion was highly linked to FAdV (OR = 8.20), and liver lesions were specifically linked to FAdV (OR = 4.28) [3]. In waterfowl in China, co-infection of FAdV with H9N2 avian influenza virus, Tembusu virus, duck hepatitis virus, and duck circovirus is common, with a 60.23% total infection rate for FAdV [45]. In ducks, FAdV-4 and duck adenovirus 3 have been detected as co-infections, with a need for further research into their combined pathogenesis [30]. In China, a novel co-infection of FAdV-4, FAdV-8a, and FAdV-8b with avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) was identified, marking the first report of this combination. The clinical presentation included decreased egg production, increased mortality, and hydropericardium-hepatitis syndrome-like lesions [34]. A surveillance study in eastern China from apparently healthy birds found a remarkable diversity, detecting all 12 FAdV serotypes and showing that FAdV serotype 1 was the most prevalent, but co-circulation of serotypes within flocks was implied by the detection of multiple species (A, B, C, D, E) in the same geographic region [50]. These data collectively illustrate that FAdV pathogenesis is not a simple one-pathogen-one-disease equation. Instead, it is a dynamic process where the host's immune status, the metabolic state of the cell, and the presence of other pathogens all converge to shape the final outcome, from subclinical infection to catastrophic mortality.

Epidemiology and Global Distribution

Fowl adenoviruses (FAdVs) represent ubiquitous pathogens with a truly global distribution, exhibiting a complex epidemiological landscape characterized by the co-circulation of multiple species and serotypes across diverse poultry production systems. As non-enveloped DNA viruses of the genus Aviadenovirus, family Adenoviridae, FAdVs are remarkably resilient in the environment, facilitating their widespread dissemination and persistence [8]. The epidemiological significance of FAdVs has escalated dramatically over the past two decades, driven by the emergence of hypervirulent strains, shifting patterns of serotype prevalence, and the increasing recognition of the economic toll exacted by diseases such as hepatitis-hydropericardium syndrome (HHS), inclusion body hepatitis (IBH), and adenoviral gizzard erosion (AGE) [2, 22]. The global burden of FAdV-associated diseases is substantial, with outbreaks reported across all major poultry-producing continents, including Asia, the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Oceania, making this virus a priority concern for the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and national veterinary authorities [8, 24].

Global Distribution of FAdV Species and Serotypes

The epidemiological architecture of FAdV is defined by its five species (FAdV-A through FAdV-E) and 12 serotypes (FAdV-1 to -11, with 8a and 8b considered distinct), which are not uniformly distributed but exhibit geographical and temporal fluctuations in dominance [15, 50]. Historically, FAdV-1 (species A) was recognized as a primary cause of gizzard erosion, while serotypes within species D and E, particularly FAdV-2, -8a, -8b, and -11, have been strongly associated with IBH outbreaks worldwide [26, 76]. The most significant epidemiological shift in recent years, however, has been the global emergence and dominance of hypervirulent FAdV-4 (species C) as the principal etiological agent of HHS, a disease first reported in Pakistan in the late 1980s but which has since spread relentlessly across Asia, the Middle East, and beyond [22, 63, 77].

Asia-Pacific Region: China has been an epicenter for FAdV research and evolution, particularly since the 2015 emergence of highly pathogenic (HP) FAdV-4 strains. Epidemiological surveys in eastern China have revealed the circulation of all 12 serotypes even in apparently healthy birds, with FAdV-1 being the most prevalent in those specific surveillance settings [50]. However, clinical outbreaks have been dominated by a different set of serotypes. A nationwide surveillance of broiler farms in Shandong Province from 2021 to 2022 identified FAdV-2, -4, -8b, and -11 as the dominant serotypes, with HP-FAdV-4 causing the most severe clinical signs, including pericardial effusion and high mortality (10-80% in SPF chicks) [49]. This is corroborated by extensive molecular characterization of FAdV-4 strains circulating in southern China (Guangxi Province), where highly virulent strains (e.g., GX2019-010 to GX2019-018) were found to possess a characteristic 1966-bp deletion encompassing ORF19 and ORF27, a genetic hallmark linked to increased pathogenicity [48]. Phylogenetic analyses suggest these HP-FAdV-4 strains share a common ancestor with traditional strains but have undergone significant genomic evolution, possibly through recombination events [44]. The epidemiological situation in Yunnan Province further underscores the complexity, with a 11.3% FAdV-4 positive rate in poultry and crucial evidence of spillover into wild bird populations, including the first detection in black-necked cranes, raising concerns about wildlife reservoirs and long-distance viral dissemination [6].

In South Korea, a nationwide surveillance program on 145 broiler farms detected FAdV in 44.1% of flocks, with FAdV-11/D and FAdV-5/B being the most frequently identified serotypes, while FAdV-4/C was conspicuously absent [5]. This highlights a distinctly different epidemiological profile compared to China, where FAdV-4 is hyperendemic. IBH diagnosed by microscopy was confirmed in only 13.8% of FAdV-positive farms, indicating that subclinical infections are highly prevalent. The presence of co-infections, particularly with variant infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) and infectious bronchitis virus, had a synergistic deleterious effect on poultry productivity, emphasizing that FAdV epidemiology cannot be viewed in isolation [5].

Middle East and Africa: The Middle East has experienced severe FAdV-4 epidemics, with Iran documenting high-mortality HHS outbreaks in central provinces, where phylogenetic analysis of the FAdV-4 strain (e.g., isolate PP856395 from Kashan) showed 99.99% identity with strains from Japan, the UAE, Pakistan, and the USA, suggesting a global dispersal pattern possibly linked to the trade of infected poultry or contaminated fomites [63]. The complete genome sequence of an FAdV-4 strain from an Iranian outbreak (FAdV-4/Pasouk) confirmed its genetic similarity to contemporary Chinese isolates, indicating a shared ancestry [77]. This pattern of transboundary spread is echoed in Iraq, where molecular detection confirmed the presence of the Melad strain of FAdV-4, a novel variant responsible for ongoing HHS epidemics [32]. Further complicating the picture, FAdV-8b (species E) has also been confirmed to cause HHS in Iraq, a finding that challenges the traditional dogma attributing HHS solely to FAdV-4 and has significant implications for vaccine strategy [12].

In Egypt, FAdVs have emerged as a persistent threat, with studies showing an overall flock-level prevalence of 31.4% in broilers with IBH-HPS [19]. Contrary to the pattern in Iran and China, species D serotypes, particularly FAdV-2 and FAdV-11, are the most prevalent in Egypt, accounting for the vast majority of clinical cases [19, 20]. This underscores the regional specificity of dominant serotypes. However, the epidemiological landscape is not static; Egyptian researchers have also recently identified FAdV-7 (species E) for the first time in broiler breeders, indicating ongoing viral evolution and the introduction of new serotypes [75]. FAdV-8b continues to circulate, and two isolates from 2024 (Chicken-Egypt/Behera/2024 and Chicken-Egypt/Mounofia/2024) were identified as FAdV-D serotype 2, showing high homology with Chinese strains [74]. This genetic connectivity across continents suggests a global viral pool from which regional epidemics can draw.

The Americas: Extensive surveillance in Brazil, a global poultry powerhouse, has revealed a high prevalence of FAdVs. A cross-sectional study analyzing 1,988 commercial flocks found a 25.5% positivity rate for at least one of the target viruses (FAdV, CAstV, ARV), with FAdV being most prevalent in the states of Santa Catarina and Paraná [3]. A more targeted molecular study from 2020-2023 detected FAdV in 10.6% of 678 flocks, identifying three main species: FAdV-A (serotype 1), FAdV-D (serotypes 9 and 11), and FAdV-E (serotypes 6, 8a, and 8b) [7]. The co-circulation of these serotypes, alongside enteric viruses, creates a complex syndemic scenario. FAdV detection was strongly associated with characteristic gross lesions, including a remarkable odds ratio (OR) of 8.20 for gizzard erosion (with FAdV) and 4.28 for liver lesions [3]. FAdV-8a, isolated from chickens with runting and stunting syndrome, was shown to produce IBH/HHS in chicken embryos, confirming its pathogenic potential [76]. In contrast, systematic surveys in Serbia using ELISA revealed that 74.28% of broiler serum samples were seropositive for FAdVs, with molecular analysis confirming the circulation of FAdV-D (serotypes 2 and 11) and FAdV-E (serotype 8b), strains closely related to those circulating in Hungary and Turkey [35].

Temporal and Age-Related Dynamics

The epidemiology of FAdV is profoundly influenced by the age of the host and the temporal dynamics of viral shedding. Clinical disease, particularly IBH and HHS, typically manifests in broiler chickens between 2 to 6 weeks of age, a period coinciding with the waning of maternally derived antibodies [22, 69]. In Egypt, a clear trend was observed where the prevalence of FAdV detection increased with flock age, rising from 10% in 1-10 day old birds to 54% in flocks over 30 days old [19]. In Brazil, all positive flocks were under 70 days of age, with chicks younger than 14 days being more likely to test positive for other viruses (like CAstV), while those aged 15-70 days showed higher FAdV positivity [3]. Experimental infections have refined this understanding; for instance, FAdV-11 was shown to induce typical severe IBH in chicks less than 2 weeks old, while older birds (2-week-old) were more resistant [59]. The temporal progression of viral shedding in infected birds is also critical for transmission dynamics. Chickens infected with dominant serotypes in Shandong (FAdV-2, -4, -8b, -11) exhibited a maximum duration of viral shedding of 14 days, with the highest incidence of clinical signs observed between days 5-9 post-infection, followed by gradual regression [49].

The Impact of Co-infections on Epidemiology and Pathogenesis

A defining feature of FAdV epidemiology is its frequent involvement in polymicrobial infections. FAdVs are rarely found in isolation in clinically severe outbreaks; they are potent immunosuppressive agents that synergize with other pathogens to exacerbate disease. This phenomenon is a critical driver of economic losses and complicates outbreak investigation. A landmark study on FAdV-4 and chicken infectious anemia virus (CIAV) co-infection demonstrated a significant increase in mortality and clinical scores compared to infection with FAdV-8b alone [1]. The co-infection also altered the tissue distribution patterns of FAdV, suggesting a mechanism whereby CIAV-induced immunosuppression permits enhanced viral replication and spread [1]. Similarly, the co-infection of FAdV-1 and FAdV-4 in Chinese layer flocks was found to enhance FAdV-4 replication 21-fold in vitro through the upregulation of heat shock protein A2 (HSPA2) [13]. This synergy led to a 16.7% increase in mortality in SPF chickens, highlighting the dangers of multiple serotype circulation.

In China’s Shaanxi province, a pathogenic triad was discovered involving co-infection of FAdV (serotypes 4, 8a, and 8b) and avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV), representing the first report of such a combination [34]. In South Korean farms, co-infection with three or more diseases, specifically IBH (caused by FAdV), variant IBDV infection, and infectious bronchitis, had a "more deleterious effect on poultry productivity" than any single infection [5]. In Pakistan, the problem extends to the waterfowl sector, where ducks and geese in Shandong Province showed a 60.23% infection rate for FAdVs, with a high frequency of co-infections with H9N2 avian influenza virus, Tembusu virus, duck hepatitis virus, and other agents [45]. These findings collectively establish that the true economic impact of FAdVs is amplified multifold through their role as a co-pathogen, a factor that must be integrated into control programs.

Host Range and Spillover Events

While chickens are the primary host, FAdVs demonstrate a broad host range that is central to their epidemiology. Infections have been documented in turkeys, ducks, geese, pigeons, and wild birds acting as potential reservoirs [50]. The detection of FAdV-4 in the feces of wild black-necked cranes in Yunnan Province provides direct evidence of spillover from domestic poultry into wild avian populations [6]. This finding is of significant ecological concern, as wild birds could serve as asymptomatic carriers capable of disseminating the virus over long migratory routes, potentially introducing novel strains into distant poultry populations. In Shandong Province, waterfowl (ducks and geese) were found to have FAdV infection rates as high as 65.47% in fattening duck farms, with the same species (FAdV-A, C, D, E) and serotypes (1, 4, 8a, 8b, 11) circulating that are found in chickens, confirming cross-species transmission [45]. Furthermore, a serological investigation in Serbia using ELISA indicated widespread exposure, with seroconversion rates ranging from 23.33 to 100% depending on the farm, demonstrating that infection pressure can be extraordinarily high even in the absence of overt clinical disease [35]. The presence of FAdVs in apparently healthy birds, as documented in eastern China where 8.65% of samples from slaughterhouses and live bird markets were positive, presents a constant reservoir for outbreaks when biosecurity is compromised [50].

Diagnostic Approaches: Conventional and Molecular Techniques

The accurate and timely diagnosis of fowl adenovirus (FAdV) infections is paramount for implementing effective control strategies, mitigating economic losses, and understanding the complex epidemiological landscape of these ubiquitous pathogens. The diagnostic armamentarium for FAdV has evolved considerably, spanning from classical histopathological evaluation and virus isolation to highly sophisticated molecular platforms capable of rapid serotyping and quantification. A comprehensive diagnostic approach integrates these modalities, leveraging the strengths of each to address specific clinical and research questions. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes the economic significance of FAdV-induced diseases such as inclusion body hepatitis (IBH) and hepatitis-hydropericardium syndrome (HHS), underscoring the need for standardized and sensitive diagnostic protocols.

Histopathology and Immunohistochemistry: The Gold Standard for Lesion Confirmation

Despite the advent of molecular techniques, histopathological examination remains a cornerstone for confirming FAdV-associated disease, particularly in cases lacking a clear clinical presentation. The pathognomonic microscopic lesion, observed in virtually all serotypes causing systemic disease, is the presence of basophilic or eosinophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies within degenerated hepatocytes [19, 20, 29, 32, 63, 65-69]. These inclusion bodies, which represent viral replication centers (factories), are frequently accompanied by coagulative necrosis, hepatocellular vacuolar degeneration, and a mononuclear inflammatory cell infiltrate [20, 63, 66, 69]. The specificity of this lesion allows for a strong presumptive diagnosis of FAdV infection, even in the absence of virological confirmation.

The utility of histopathology extends beyond simple detection; it provides crucial insights into the extent of tissue damage and organ tropism. In FAdV-4 infections, hepatic lesions are typically severe and accompanied by hydropericardium, a hallmark of HHS [12, 32]. Conversely, FAdV-8b and -11 infections often manifest primarily as IBH with pronounced hepatic necrosis and lymphoid depletion in the bursa of Fabricius, spleen, and cecal tonsils [65, 67, 68, 73]. The role of histopathology in characterizing co-infections is also notable. For instance, in cases of FAdV-8b co-infection with chicken infectious anemia virus (CIAV), the severity of aplastic anemia and lymphoid atrophy is markedly exacerbated, a finding that can be quantified histologically [1]. Furthermore, immunohistochemistry (IHC), using monoclonal antibodies directed against major capsid proteins such as the hexon, can enhance the sensitivity and specificity of detection within formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues, allowing for precise localization of viral antigens within specific cell types and tissues, including the demonstration of viral particles in the kidney and myocardium [75, 76]. While not strictly a molecular technique, IHC bridges the gap between morphology and virological confirmation.

Virus Isolation in Embryonated Eggs and Cell Culture

Virus isolation remains a critical conventional technique, particularly for obtaining high-titer stocks for vaccine development, pathogenicity studies, and whole-genome characterization. FAdVs are traditionally propagated in specific-pathogen-free (SPF) embryonated chicken eggs (ECEs) and primary or continuous cell lines. Inoculation of 9-to-11-day-old SPF ECEs via the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) or allantoic sac route is a standard method. Successful isolation is characterized by embryonic death, typically observed between 3- and 7-days post-inoculation, along with specific gross lesions such as dwarfism, beak atrophy, pale claws, hepatomegaly with multiple necrotic foci (often described as a "nutmeg" liver), and hydropericardium [20, 76, 82]. Pock lesions on the CAM are also a characteristic finding [20]. The virus can be further propagated and titrated in primary chicken embryo liver (CEL) or chicken embryo kidney (CEK) cells, or in the continuous Leghorn male hepatoma (LMH) cell line [13, 62, 74, 79]. Cytopathic effects (CPE) typical of FAdVs include rounding, detachment, and the formation of grape-like clusters of infected cells, which become visible within 24–72 hours post-infection, depending on the serotype and viral load [40, 74, 83]. The successful isolation of FAdV-4 and FAdV-8b isolates from field outbreaks in Iran, Egypt, and Malaysia has relied heavily on these classical virological techniques, which remain indispensable for generating the live virus material needed for downstream molecular and immunological characterization [39, 63, 74].

Serological Assays: ELISA and Beyond

Serological analysis is a powerful tool for population-level surveillance, assessing vaccine efficacy, and monitoring the introduction of FAdV into naïve flocks. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has become the serological method of choice due to its rapidity, high throughput, and objectivity. Recent advances have focused on enhancing the specificity and sensitivity of these assays, particularly for the detection of anti-FAdV-4 antibodies. The fiber proteins (Fiber-1 and Fiber-2) are recognized as superior antigens for serodiagnosis due to their immunodominance and serotype-specific epitopes, compared to the more conserved hexon protein [81]. A significant breakthrough in this area is the development of a one-step competitive ELISA (cELISA) utilizing nanobodies. Ji et al. (2025) screened and expressed 23 nanobodies against FAdV-4, ultimately selecting a fusion protein (FAdV-4-Nb28-HRP) that specifically recognizes a conserved epitope on the Fiber-1 protein (GLN235-ASN236-SER238) [51]. This cELISA demonstrated superior sensitivity compared to a commercial ELISA kit, particularly in detecting seroconversion in sequentially sampled challenged chickens, and offers a streamlined, rapid (75-minute) protocol ideal for large-scale epidemiological investigations [51].

Further innovations in sandwich ELISA technology have been applied for direct detection of viral antigen. A newly developed sandwich ELISA employing rabbit monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the Fiber-1 knob and tail domains achieved a detection limit of 0.532 ng/mL of Fiber-1 protein, with 97.44% agreement with quantitative PCR (qPCR) in clinical sera [78]. This assay provides a rapid, cost-effective alternative to qPCR for antigen quantification in tissue samples and sera. Additionally, a novel sandwich ELISA using specific mAbs against the hexon protein has been designed to differentiate highly pathogenic FAdV-4 (HP-FAdV-4) from low pathogenic FAdV-4 (LP-FAdV-4) by targeting a key arginine residue at position 188 (188R) in the hexon, a marker of virulence in Chinese HP-FAdV-4 strains [14]. This differentiating capability is of immense value for epidemiological surveillance and targeted vaccination strategies. The development of recombinant fiber-2-based indirect ELISAs has also shown excellent correlation with the serum neutralization test (SNT), confirming their suitability for large-scale seroprevalence studies [43, 81]. These next-generation serological assays represent a significant leap forward, providing rapid, specific, and scalable tools for both antigen and antibody detection.

Molecular Diagnostics: PCR, Real-Time PCR, and High-Resolution Melting

Molecular techniques have revolutionized FAdV diagnostics, offering unparalleled sensitivity, specificity, and speed. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting the hexon gene, particularly the Loop 1 (L1) hypervariable region, is the most widely used molecular method for both detection and serotyping. The hexon gene is highly conserved within serotypes but contains variable loops that are the primary determinants of serotype specificity. Numerous studies have successfully employed conventional PCR to amplify a ~590-900 bp fragment of the hexon gene from clinical samples (liver, spleen, kidney, cloacal swabs), followed by Sanger sequencing for definitive genotype determination [15, 16, 19, 29, 35, 38, 74, 75]. This approach has been instrumental in identifying circulating serotypes globally, such as FAdV-11 in India, FAdV-2 in Egypt, and FAdV-8b in Malaysia, highlighting the genetic diversity and regional variation of FAdVs [16, 19, 29, 39].

Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) provides the added benefit of viral load quantification, which is critical for understanding pathogenesis, monitoring disease progression, and evaluating vaccine efficacy. QPCR assays targeting various conserved regions, such as the 52K gene or the hexon gene, have been developed and validated [7, 21, 36, 75, 78]. A novel dual-primer qPCR coupled with high-resolution melting (HRM) analysis has been specifically designed to detect and differentiate FAdV-4 from duck adenovirus 3 (DAdV-3) in waterfowl, achieving a detection limit of approximately 2.8 copies/µL [30]. This technique is particularly valuable for differential diagnosis in mixed poultry operations. The utility of qPCR has been elegantly demonstrated in studies tracking viral loads in experimentally infected chickens. For example, in FAdV-8b infected chickens, viral DNA was detected in bone marrow as early as 12 hours post-infection, preceding detection in other organs, and viral loads in the liver were significantly correlated with the severity of histopathological lesions [57, 67]. Similarly, qPCR has been used to quantify the reduction in viral shedding following vaccination, providing a robust measure of vaccine efficacy [40].

Isothermal Amplification and CRISPR-Based Platforms for Point-of-Care Testing

Despite the sensitivity of qPCR, its dependence on expensive thermal cyclers and skilled personnel limits its application in resource-limited field settings. To address this, several isothermal amplification methods have been developed, which can be performed at a constant temperature, often using simple heating devices or even body heat.

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is a prominent example. LAMP assays targeting the hexon gene of FAdV-4 have been developed, demonstrating high specificity and sensitivity (as low as 1 copy/μL). The LAMP-CRISPR/Cas12a system integrates the specificity of CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) with the sensitivity of LAMP. In this platform, LAMP first amplifies the target DNA, which then activates the Cas12a endonuclease. The activated Cas12a cleaves a fluorescent reporter probe, generating a detectable signal. This combined system allows for visual detection of FAdV-4 in under 40 minutes with a detection limit of 1 copy, using only a simple heat block or water bath [21]. A similar approach using Pyrococcus furiosus Argonaute (PfAgo) combined with LAMP has also been developed, offering a 50-minute assay with a 5-copy detection limit and visual readout under UV light, making it ideal for field deployment [23].

Multienzyme isothermal rapid amplification (MIRA) is another recent innovation that operates at 36°C. Dai et al. (2024) developed three MIRA formats for FAdV-4: a basic MIRA (for simple detection), MIRA-qPCR (for quantification), and MIRA-LFD (lateral flow dipstick for naked-eye visualization). The MIRA-qPCR and MIRA-LFD assays completed detection in 20 minutes with high sensitivity (10 copies/μL and 100 copies/μL, respectively) and demonstrated 100% concordance with conventional PCR on clinical samples [80]. These isothermal platforms represent a paradigm shift, enabling rapid, cost-effective, and instrument-free diagnosis at the point of care, which is crucial for early outbreak detection and containment in the field.

Species-Specific and High-Throughput Genotyping

Accurate identification of the FAdV species (A-E) and serotype is essential for epidemiological tracking and vaccine formulation. A recent major advancement is the development of a single-tube multiplex PCR assay capable of simultaneously detecting all five FAdV species. Targeting conserved regions of the fiber and penton base genes, this assay exhibits a sensitivity of 25 copies per tube and can differentiate between single, dual, triple, and even quadruple species co-infections [17]. Applied to 79 field cases, the assay revealed a complex infection landscape, with 53.2% single-species infections and 36.7% dual-species co-infections, primarily FAdV-D and -E. This technique provides a rapid (2-3 hour) and relatively inexpensive method for large-scale surveillance, bypassing the need for sequencing for preliminary species identification [17].

For definitive serotyping and high-resolution strain characterization, Sanger sequencing of the hexon gene loop 1 region remains a widely used gold standard. However, with the decreasing cost of next-generation sequencing (NGS), whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is becoming increasingly important for understanding viral evolution, recombination events, and virulence determinants. WGS has uncovered genomic mosaicism in rare serotypes like FAdV-3, and has identified key genetic markers such as the 1966-bp deletion in ORF19/27 associated with the hypervirulent FAdV-4 genotype emerging from China [11, 44]. The construction of reverse genetics systems for FAdV-4 and FAdV-8b, which allow for targeted manipulation of the viral genome, relies entirely on molecular cloning and WGS for the design and verification of recombinant viruses [10, 61]. Phylogenetic analysis of complete hexon gene sequences provides robust discrimination between closely related serotypes (e.g., FAdV-8a and -8b) and reveals the complex evolutionary trajectories of these viruses across different geographical regions, as demonstrated in comprehensive surveys from Brazil, China, and Egypt [7, 19, 45, 48, 49].

Prevention and Control: Vaccination and Biosecurity

The multifaceted nature of Fowl Adenovirus (FAdV) epidemiology, characterized by a ubiquitous presence, multiple serotypes with varying pathogenic profiles, and efficient horizontal and vertical transmission, necessitates a comprehensive and stratified approach to prevention and control. The cornerstone of this strategy rests upon the dual pillars of robust vaccination protocols and stringent biosecurity measures, which are inextricably linked and must be implemented synergistically to mitigate the substantial economic losses and animal welfare concerns associated with FAdV-induced diseases such as inclusion body hepatitis (IBH), hepatitis-hydropericardium syndrome (HHS), and gizzard erosion (GE) [8, 46]. The evolution of vaccine technologies, from traditional inactivated preparations to sophisticated recombinant and next-generation platforms, reflects the urgent need to address the antigenic diversity and immunosuppressive potential of these pathogens.

Vaccination Strategies: From Whole Virus to Next-Generation Platforms

The development of effective vaccines against FAdV has been a central focus of research, driven by the global resurgence of outbreaks. While early efforts centered on inactivated whole-virus vaccines derived from local isolates, the contemporary landscape is dominated by a push towards multivalent, subunit, and live-attenuated formulations that offer improved safety profiles, broader protection, and the potential for differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA).

Inactivated and Whole-Virus Vaccines Classical inactivated vaccines, often formulated as oil-emulsion preparations, remain a practical and widely used tool, particularly for breeder flocks to ensure passive immunity transfer to progeny. The development of a trivalent inactivated vaccine targeting the clinically predominant serotypes FAdV-4, FAdV-8a, and FAdV-8b represents a significant advancement, demonstrating that a single vaccination could effectively prime the immune system against multiple virulent strains, offering a "multi-prevention effect" critical for regions like China where these serotypes co-circulate [4]. Similar success has been achieved with monovalent inactivated vaccines for FAdV-8a, which induced significant antibody responses and provided ample protection against IBH [36]. The efficacy of these vaccines is critically dependent on the inactivation process itself. Detailed analysis using binary ethyleneimine (BEI) on FAdV-8b has established that an inactivation period of 32 hours is optimal, ensuring complete loss of infectivity in embryonated eggs while retaining immunogenicity capable of eliciting a strong booster response, superior to a 36-hour treatment which may over-process key antigens [37]. Furthermore, inactivated recombinant platforms have shown tremendous promise; for instance, an inactivated recombinant FAdV-4 expressing the Fiber-2 protein of Duck Adenovirus 3 (DAdV-3) not only protected Muscovy ducks against DAdV-3 challenge, leading to undetectable viral loads, but also induced neutralizing antibodies against FAdV-4, highlighting the utility of the FAdV genome as a vector for bivalent protection [88].

Subunit and Recombinant Technologies The limitations of whole-virus vaccines, including production biosafety concerns and potential for incomplete inactivation, have accelerated the development of subunit vaccines. The trimeric fiber proteins, particularly Fiber2 (and to a lesser extent Fiber1 and penton base), have emerged as the leading protective antigens. Their location on the virion surface and role in cellular attachment make them prime targets for neutralizing antibodies [31, 46, 52]. A multitude of studies have confirmed that recombinant Fiber2 protein, expressed in E. coli and formulated with oil adjuvants, can confer up to 80-100% protection against lethal FAdV-4 challenge, often outperforming commercial inactivated vaccines by inducing a more rapid and robust neutralizing antibody response [31, 43]. The superiority of Fiber-based vaccines is further refined by considering the specific domains. A subunit vaccine incorporating the knob domains of both Fiber1 and Fiber2 induced antibody production earlier and at higher levels than a Fiber2-only vaccine, and birds receiving it exhibited less weight loss and significantly reduced viral shedding post-challenge, indicating a more potent blockade of viral pathogenicity in target organs [25].

Innovative delivery systems and antigen engineering are further enhancing subunit vaccine efficacy. The inherent low immunogenicity of soluble subunit proteins is being overcome through:

• Nanoparticle Display: Conjugating the Fiber2 protein to self-assembling Mi3 nanoparticles (forming ~32 nm Fiber2-Mi3 particles) via the SpyTag-SpyCatcher system elicited neutralizing antibodies detectable by day 7 post-vaccination, significantly earlier than the Fiber2 monomer or a commercial inactivated vaccine. This platform resulted in superior protection, characterized by less weight loss, lower viral loads, and reduced viral shedding, effectively blocking pathogenicity in the liver [9].
• Chimeric and DC-Targeting Strategies: Fusing Fiber2 with a dendritic cell (DC)-targeting peptide (SPHLHTSSPWER) and the conserved flagellin B subunit (FliBc) created a recombinant protein (FliBc-fiber2-SP) that significantly enhanced IgG antibody levels and achieved 100% protection in SPF chickens. This strategy leverages the adjuvant properties of flagellin and the potency of antigen presentation to DCs, dramatically improving the immune response over the unmodified Fiber2 protein [86].
• Chimeric Fiber Proteins for Cross-Protection: A major hurdle in FAdV control is the lack of cross-protection between serotypes, particularly between FAdV-4 (HHS) and FAdV-11 (IBH). A novel chimeric subunit vaccine, Fiber-C4/D11, which swaps the shaft and knob domains of the Fiber proteins from FAdV-4 and FAdV-11, was shown to induce high levels of cross-neutralizing antibodies and provide robust protection against both serotypes, a feat not achievable by natural infection or single-serotype vaccines. This represents a breakthrough in developing broad-spectrum FAdV vaccines [84].
• Oral and Probiotic-Based Delivery: Recognizing the impracticality of injectable vaccines in some large-scale settings, an oral microencapsulated probiotic (Enterococcus faecalis) displaying Fiber2 and loaded with inulin nanoparticles has been developed. This oral vaccine survived the gastric environment, significantly enhanced both humoral and cellular immune responses, relieved inflammatory injury in target organs, and improved survival rates, offering a promising, stress-free vaccination strategy [85].

Live Attenuated and Genetically Engineered Vaccines Live-attenuated vaccines offer the advantage of mimicking a natural infection, stimulating both humoral and cell-mediated immunity, often with a single dose. Attenuation has been achieved through classical serial passage in cell culture. For example, an FAdV-8b isolate passaged in chicken embryo liver (CEL) cells and subsequently propagated in a bioreactor was demonstrated to be safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in broiler chickens, significantly reducing challenge virus shedding in the cloaca [40, 83]. Similarly, serial passage of FAdV-4 in Leghorn male hepatoma (LMH) cells, which induced a frameshift mutation in the fiber2 protein, created an attenuated strain that protected hosts from lethal challenge and cleared the invading virus, with immunized animals showing expanded populations of activated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells [87].

Modern molecular techniques are refining the process of attenuation. The CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing system has been used to modify the fiber gene of FAdV-8b, resulting in a virus with a delayed nuclear localization, reduced cytopathic effects, and lower apoptotic rates in primary cells, along with delayed mortality in embryos, characteristics of a promising live vaccine candidate [58]. Furthermore, the establishment of reverse genetics systems for FAdV-4 and FAdV-8b allows for precise genome manipulation. By replacing the hexon coding sequence of a highly pathogenic FAdV-4 with that of a nonpathogenic strain, a highly attenuated recombinant virus was generated that showed low pathogenicity in chickens. This platform is invaluable for engineering rationally attenuated viruses and developing multivalent vectors [10, 61]. The construction of a recombinant FAdV-4 (FAdV-4-F11) expressing the Fiber of FAdV-11 using CRISPR-Cas9 and Cre-LoxP systems provides another paradigm; when inactivated, this virus induced high neutralizing antibodies against both serotypes, demonstrating that the FAdV genome can be engineered as a bivalent vaccine candidate without the risk associated with live recombinant viruses [79].

Biosecurity: The Indispensable Foundation of Control

While vaccination is a powerful tool, its success is contingent upon a robust biosecurity framework that reduces the infectious pressure and prevents the introduction and spread of FAdV. The virus’s resilience, transmission routes, and the role of immunosuppressive co-infections necessitate a holistic, husbandry-based approach. As emphasized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), biosecurity represents the first line of defense against infectious diseases in industrial animal production.

Understanding Transmission Dynamics and Risk Factors FAdVs are non-enveloped viruses, rendering them highly resistant to environmental inactivation by heat, desiccation, and many common disinfectants [8]. This stability allows the virus to persist in poultry house dust, feces, and fomites for extended periods, facilitating both direct horizontal transmission through the fecal-oral route and indirect transmission via contaminated equipment, feed, and personnel. The virus can be shed for up to 14 days in infected chickens, with the highest incidence of shedding and clinical signs occurring during the critical period of 5–9 days post-infection, creating a high-risk window for within-flock amplification [49]. A critical risk factor for severe disease outbreaks is vertical transmission from infected breeder flocks. The detection of FAdV DNA in the bone marrow, spleen, and liver of chicks as early as 12 hours post-infection demonstrates the potential for early and widespread dissemination from a vertically infected hatchmate [67]. This underscores the paramount importance of maintaining FAdV-free breeder flocks, often through targeted vaccination to prevent both clinical disease and the vertical passage of virus [8, 24]. Epidemiological studies have repeatedly highlighted the role of co-infections in exacerbating FAdV pathogenicity. Co-infection with immunosuppressive agents like Chicken Infectious Anemia Virus (CIAV) significantly increases mortality and alters viral tissue tropism [1]. Similarly, the simultaneous presence of FAdV with avian hepatitis E virus (aHEV) or variant infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) has been linked to more severe outbreaks and reduced productivity [5, 34]. These findings confirm that biosecurity measures must extend beyond FAdV alone to control the entire complex of pathogens that weaken the host’s immune system.

Biosecurity Protocols and Risk Mitigation Implementing a multi-layered biosecurity plan is essential. This begins with the strict segregation of age groups using all-in/all-out management principles to break the cycle of infection between consecutive flocks. Thorough cleaning and disinfection of poultry houses between cycles are mandatory. Given the non-enveloped nature of FAdV, disinfectants must be chosen carefully; aldehydes, chlorine compounds, and oxidizing agents such as peracetic acid are generally effective, provided organic matter is removed first [8]. The control of fomites, including footwear, clothing, and vehicles, through the use of dedicated farm equipment, boot dips, and shower-in/shower-out protocols, is non-negotiable. The source of day-old chicks is of the highest importance. Broiler operations must source from breeder farms with documented FAdV vaccination and monitoring programs to minimize the risk of introducing vertically transmitted virus into a naïve flock. Surveillance of both clinical and apparently healthy birds is a vital biosecurity component. Epidemiological surveys in China have detected all 12 FAdV serotypes in healthy birds from live bird markets, underscoring that these birds act as silent reservoirs, facilitating the spread of diverse strains [50]. This highlights the danger posed by multi-age farms and live bird markets, which the FAO recommends avoiding, as they maintain a continuous cycle of infection. Furthermore, the presence of FAdV in wild birds, such as the first detection in black-necked cranes, adds an additional layer of complexity to biosecurity, necessitating measures to prevent contact between domestic poultry and wild bird populations [6].

Environmental and management factors also play a significant role in disease expression. Data from Brazil shows a strong association between leg problems and co-infections with avian reovirus, and severe gizzard erosion linked to FAdV, suggesting that nutritional and management interventions to optimize gut health and leg strength can be complementary to biosecurity [3]. The use of immunostimulant feed additives, such as probiotics, prebiotics, and specific vitamins, has been shown to have a significant beneficial effect on immunity, potentially preventing FAdV infection in broiler chicks, particularly in the face of sub-optimal immune status [38]. Providing these nutritional immunomodulators can be an effective, low-cost proactive measure. In summary, effective control of FAdV requires an integrated strategy where vaccination and biosecurity are not seen as alternatives but as complementary measures. While vaccination provides specific, targeted immunity against the dominant circulating serotypes, rigorous biosecurity reduces the overall pathogen challenge, protects against the introduction of new strains (including recombinant strains [27]), and mitigates the synergistic effects of immunosuppressive co-infections, thereby preserving the health and productivity of the flock.

References

[1] Liu L, Gao W, Chang J, Liu J, Huang Z, Sun W, et al.. Co-Infection of Chicken Infectious Anemia Virus and Fowl Adenovirus Serotype E8b Increases Mortality in Chickens. Viruses. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v17050620

[2] Kardoudi A, Benani A, Allaoui A, Kichou F, Biskri L, Ouchhour I, et al.. Fowl Adenovirus Serotype 1: From Gizzard Erosion to Comprehensive Insights into Genome Organization, Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Prevention. Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12040378

[3] Faria VBd, Silva CC, Damaso PdP, Savoldi IR, Sommerfeld S, Fonseca B. Epidemiological insights into fowl adenovirus, astrovirus, and avian reovirus in Brazilian poultry flocks: A cross-sectional study. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.104964

[4] Jiao Y, Zhao Q, Zhao Y, Li Y, Pan S, Li Y, et al.. Evaluation of the Immune Effect of a Trivalent Fowl Adenovirus Inactivated Vaccine Against FAdV-4/8a/8b. Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12060549

[5] Kim H, Song H, Jang I, Thai TN, Kim H, Kwon Y, et al.. Nationwide Surveillance of Fowl Adenovirus Infection and Coinfection With Other Diseases on Slaughter Broiler in South Korea. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/tbed/9353432

[6] Xue X, Zhang Z, Yang Q, Wang W, Song J. Epidemiological investigation and fiber gene genetic analysis of fowl adenovirus serotype 4 from 2017 to 2021 in Yunnan Province, China. Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.24121

[7] Fonseca A, Kipper D, Ikuta N, Lunge V. Molecular Characterization of Fowl Adenovirus from Brazilian Poultry Farms. Poultry. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4040045

[8] S.Chitradevi. Fowl Adenovirus Infection in Chicken: A Comprehensive Review. Microbiology Research Journal International. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/mrji/2025/v35i41566

[9] Dong X, Zhang W, Liu S, Ji J, Lin Y, Song K, et al.. A self-assembled Fiber2 nanoparticle vaccine confers superior protection against fowl adenovirus serotype 4 infection.. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.149173

[10] Tang Z, Feng D, Fan W, Yan L, Song S. Generation of an artificially attenuated fowl adenovirus 4 viral vector using the reverse genetics system based on full-length infectious clone. Veterinary Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-025-01496-x

[11] Homonnay Z, Jakab S, Marton S, Domán M, Bali K, Kaszab E, et al.. Genomic Mosaicism in Fowl Adenovirus 3 Strains. Animals. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15040508

[12] Makhzoomi AKA, Al-Ghadi MQ, Ababneh JS, Alameri O. Fowl Adenovirus 8b (FAdV-8b) Group E Causes hepatitis Hydropericardium Syndrome (HHS) In Broiler Chickens. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25258/ijpqa.16.1.2

[13] Li X, Dan M, Liu D, Ren B, Ge Y, Li Y, et al.. Coinfection with fowl adenovirus serotypes 1 and 4 (FAdV-1 and -4) enhances FAdV-4 replication through FAdV-1-mediated upregulation of HSPA2 expression. Virulence. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2025.2605751

[14] Tang Y, Xie B, Liu S, Xie Q, Wang W, Chen J, et al.. A novel monoclonal antibody differentiates highly pathogenic serotype 4 fowl adenovirus through targeting 188R in the Hexon. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.105328

[15] Sharma R, Thakur MS, Prusty BR, Nayak A, Shukla S, Jadav K, et al.. Hexon gene based molecular detection of fowl adenovirus associated inclusion body hepatitis in commercial broiler chicken. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33545/26174693.2025.v9.i9b.5542

[16] Tikoo M, Warke S, Sonkusale P, Mote C, Tumlam U. Molecular Detection and Genotypic Characterization of Fowl Adenovirus Associated with Inclusion Body Hepatitis (IBH) in Broiler Chickens of Nagpur. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.b-5569

[17] Song H, Kim H, Kim J, Her M, Kim H. A novel species-specific multiplex PCR assay for the differentiation of five Fowl adenovirus species (A to E): Application to field surveillance. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.105856

[18] Abdulla A., Jabbar R., Allawe A.. ROLE OF RELATIVE CODON USAGE (RSCU) ON INFECTIVITY AND VIRULENCE OF FOWL ADENOVIRUS ISOLATED FROM INFECTED IRAQI POULTRY. IRAQI JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36103/cv1k5m97

[19] Abdellatif DM, El-Sawah A, Elkady MF, Ali A, Abdelaziz K, Shany S. Widespread Detection of Fowl Adenovirus Serotype 2/11 Species D Among Cases of Inclusion Body Hepatitis–Hydropericardium Syndrome in Chickens in Egypt. Microorganisms. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13051107

[20] Tamam S, Yahiya MH, Hussein A, Alenazi N, Alghamdi AN, Abdel-Moneim A, et al.. Molecular and Pathological Characterization of Fowl Adenovirus Serotype 2 Linked to Inclusion Body Hepatitis in Broiler Chickens.. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2025.108097

[21] Yu Z, Shao Y, Shi D, Dong Y, Zhang Y, Cheng F, et al.. A rapid, ultrasensitive, and highly specific method for detecting fowl adenovirus serotype 4 based on the LAMP-CRISPR/Cas12a system. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104048

[22] Rashid F, Xie Z, Wei Y, Xie Z, Xie L, Li M, et al.. Biological features of fowl adenovirus serotype-4. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2024.1370414

[23] Yu Z, Shi D, Dong Y, Shao Y, Chen Z, Cheng F, et al.. Pyrococcus furiosus argonaute combined with loop-mediated isothermal amplification for rapid, ultrasensitive, and visual detection of fowl adenovirus serotype 4. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103729

[24] Luca CD, Hess M. Vaccination strategies to protect chickens from fowl adenovirus (FAdV)-induced diseases: A comprehensive review.. Vaccine. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126496

[25] Liu S, Dong X, Lei B, Zhang W, Wang X, Yuan W, et al.. A novel subunit vaccine based on Fiber1/2 knob domain provides full protection against fowl adenovirus serotype 4 and induces stronger immune responses than a Fiber2 subunit vaccine. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103888

[26] Shelke VM, Haque E. Gizzard Erosion in Broilers: The Fowl Adenovirus (FAdV)-Induced Inclusion Body Hepatitis (IBH) Poses a Significant Threat to the Broiler. Agricultural Science Digest - A Research Journal. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.d-6278

[27] Song Y, Liu L, Sun W, Gao W, Song X, Wang Y, et al.. Identification, pathogenicity and molecular characterization of a novel fowl adenovirus 8b strain. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103725

[28] Mugunthan SP, Venkatesan D, Govindasamy C, Selvaraj D, Harish MC. Systems approach to design multi-epitopic peptide vaccine candidate against fowl adenovirus structural proteins for Gallus gallus domesticus. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2024.1351303

[29] Sadekuzzaman M, Miah M, Parvin R, Haque ME, Islam T, Sigma S, et al.. Pathological investigation, molecular characterization and first-time isolation of the predominant serotypes of fowl adenovirus (FAdV-D and E) from commercial poultry in Bangladesh. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1490255

[30] Chen S, Chen C, Zhang M, Chen Y, Zhang W, Fu H, et al.. Detection and differentiation of fowl adenovirus serotype 4 and duck adenovirus 3 using high resolution melting curve assay. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104426

[31] Liu W, Liu M, Wang S, Tang Z, Liu J, Song S, et al.. The Development of a Novel Fiber-2 Subunit Vaccine against Fowl Adenovirus Serotype 4 Formulated with Oil Adjuvants. Vaccines. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12030263

[32] Oraibi MI, Khaleel M, Al-Baldawi AAA. Incidence of Hepatitis Hydropericardium Syndrome in Broiler Chickens Caused by a New Fowl Adenovirus Strain in Iraq. World's Veterinary Journal. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54203/scil.2024.wvj71

[33] Bayraktar E, Aydin O, Tali HE, Yilmaz S, Yılmaz A, Turan N, et al.. Molecular characterisation of fowl adenovirus associated with hydropericardium hepatitis syndrome in broiler and layer breeders in Azerbaijan. BMC Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-04081-0

[34] Zhang Y, Xu H, Tian Y, Tang J, Lin H, Sun Y, et al.. Coinfection of avian hepatitis E virus and different serotypes of fowl adenovirus in chicken flocks in Shaanxi, China. Microbiology spectrum. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01338-24

[35] Spalević L, Milićević V, Kureljušić B, Glišić D, Vojinović D, Veljović L, et al.. First molecular detection and characterization of fowl adenovirus in commercial broilers in Serbia. Veterinarski arhiv (Tisak). 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24099/vet.arhiv.2500

[36] Wu J, Lu X, Song L, Liu L, Gao Y, Li H, et al.. Preparation and evaluation of the immune efficacy of an inactivated fowl adenovirus 8a serotype oil emulsion vaccine. Heliyon. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26578

[37] Sohaimi NM, Azreen AQM, Bejo M, Rahaman NYA. Safety and Immunogenicity of Inactivated Fowl Adenovirus Serotype 8b Isolate Following Different Inactivation Time Intervals in Broiler Chickens.. Archives of Razi Institute. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32592/ari.2024.79.5.997

[38] Niczyporuk J, Kozdruń W, Tomczyk G, Piekarska K, Barabasz M, Michalski M. Molecular characteristics of fowl adenovirus strains detected in broiler chickens on diets without immunostimulant supplements. Journal of Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jvetres-2024-0028

[39] Azli B, Salim NF, Hair-Bejo M, Sohaimi NM, Hamid NAWA, Isa NM. Complete genome sequence of local Malaysian Fowl adenovirus serotype 8b UPM T221 strain. Asia-Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35118/apjmbb.2024.032.4(special).08

[40] Ugwu CC, Hair-Bejo M, Nurulfiza M, Omar A, Ideris A. Attenuation and molecular characterization of fowl adenovirus 8b propagated in a bioreactor and its immunogenicity, efficacy, and virus shedding in broiler chickens. Veterinary World. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2024.744-755

[41] Butcher GD, Hossiny M. Fowl Adenovirus Hepatitis (IBH and HHS): An Emerging Poultry Disease. EDIS. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-vm263-2024

[42] Li X, Xie Z, Wei Y, Xie Z, Wu A, Luo S, et al.. The Knob Domain of the Fiber-1 Protein Affects the Replication of Fowl Adenovirus Serotype 4. Microorganisms. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12112265

[43] Ather F, Zia MA, Shah MS, Habib M. Protective immune response of recombinant Fiber-2 protein as subunit vaccine against Fowl-adenovirus-4 infection in Pakistan. Advances in Life Sciences. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62940/als.v11i2.1721

[44] Liao J, Shi Y, Tang H, Fu P, Li J, Zhang Y, et al.. Emerging and characterization of a novel fowl adenovirus 4 strain with open reading frame 19 (ORF19) in diseased chickens from China. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104702

[45] Wu B, Jiang X, He D, Wei F, Mao M, Zhu Y, et al.. Epidemiological investigation of fowl adenovirus (FAdV) infections in ducks and geese in Shandong Province, China. Avian Pathology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2024.2302138

[46] Zahid R, Waheed SF, Siddiqua A, Shah M, Saleem M, Iqbal M, et al.. Fowl adenovirus-induced diseases: analyses of major capsid proteins and vaccine strategies. Worlds Poultry Science Journal. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2024.2315424

[47] Das AK, Shelke VM. Fowl Adenovirus Induced Gizzard Erosion in Broiler Chickens in Southern India. Agricultural Science Digest - A Research Journal. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.d-5890

[48] Wei Y, Xie Z, Xie Z, Deng X, Li X, Xie L, et al.. Differences in the pathogenicity and molecular characteristics of fowl adenovirus serotype 4 epidemic strains in Guangxi Province, southern China. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1428958

[49] Wang T, Meng F, Chen C, Shen Y, Li P, Xu J, et al.. Pathogenicity and epidemiological survey of fowl adenovirus in Shandong Province from 2021 to 2022. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1166078

[50] Zhuang Q, Wang S, Zhang F, Zhao C, Chen Q, Zhao R, et al.. Molecular epidemiology analysis of fowl adenovirus detected from apparently healthy birds in eastern China. BMC Veterinary Research. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03545-5

[51] Ji P, Zhang H, Yangzong X, Li Z, Liu Z, Dan M, et al.. A highly sensitive one-step nanobody-based immunoassay to specifically detect antibodies against fowl adenovirus serotype 4. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.104970

[52] Zhang X, Wang X, Zhao Y, Li S, Xu X. Unveiling the role of hexon-associated host proteins in fowl adenovirus serotype 4 replication. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1562872

[53] Sun J, Cao X, Li Y, Yu K, Cong Y, Pan Q, et al.. Oxidative stress in the liver of chicken during fowl adenovirus serotype 4 infection. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.105054

[54] Gao S, Zhai S, Li R, Feng Y, Yu L, Zhang X, et al.. Fowl adenovirus serotype 4 ORF1B protein suppresses type I interferon production by inhibiting IRF7 nuclear translocation.. Cytokine. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cyto.2025.157017

[55] Zhu C, Zhou J, Chen Z, Chen C, Wang Z, Yang P, et al.. Mechanistic insights into the kidney injury in chickens induced by hypervirulent fowl adenovirus serotype 4. Microbiology spectrum. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00058-25

[56] Wang H, Li W, Feng H, Wu M, Zainab F, Wang J, et al.. Fowl adenovirus serotype-4 induces autophagy via the AMPK-mTOR signaling pathway during viral invasion of host cells. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.104967

[57] Azli B, Salim NF, Hair-Bejo M, Omar A, Sohaimi NM, Clifford UC, et al.. Temporal dynamics of chicken host’s molecular response against Fowl adenovirus serotype 8b infection via RNA-sequencing. BMC Genomics. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-025-11853-x

[58] Ahmed S, Azli B, Razak MA, Hair-Bejo M, Omar AR, Ideris A, et al.. Delayed nuclear localization of CRISPR/Cas9-modified fiber of Fowl adenovirus serotype 8b reduced pathogenicity in Specific pathogen-free Chicken embryonic liver cells.. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2025.107482

[59] Qiao Q, Xu M, Wang X, Tian J, Zhang Y, Song C, et al.. Genomic characterization and pathogenicity of a novel fowl adenovirus serotype 11 isolated from chickens with inclusion body hepatitis in China. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103642

[60] Zhu C, Zhou J, Chen Z, Chen C, Yang P, Wang Z, et al.. Hypervirulent fowl adenovirus serotype 4 elicits early innate immune response and promotes virus-induced cellular autophagy in the spleen. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103831

[61] Qiao Q, Yang P, Liu J, Xu M, Li Y, Li X, et al.. Genome characterization of a novel fowl adenovirus serotype 8b isolate and construction of the reverse genetic system for rapid genome manipulation.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2024.110262

[62] Hou X, Wang L, Zhang R, Liu G, Wang T, Wen B, et al.. Differential innate immune responses to fowl adenovirus serotype 4 infection in Leghorn male hepatocellular and chicken embryo fibroblast cells. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103741

[63] Ghorani M, Shahbazfar A, Ghorbiani M, Ghorbanzadeh B, Kamyabi R. Molecular and histopathological characterization of fowl adenovirus serotype 4 in broiler chickens in Kashan, Iran: implications for disease control and prevention in the poultry industry. Veterinary Research Forum. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2024.2030590.4302

[64] Kau-Strebinger K, Reichart U, Mitra T, Grafl B, Hess M, Liebhart D. Virulence of fowl adenovirus (FAdV) serotype 4 strains impacts cell proliferation and immune response of primary chicken-embryo intestinal epithelial cells. Veterinary Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-025-01541-9

[65] Sohaimi NM, Dzilan MAHBM, Bejo M, Othman A. Metabolic Disturbances, Histopathological Analysis, and Virus Detection in Chicken Following Infection with Fowl Adenovirus Serotype 8B. Malaysian applied biology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55230/mabjournal.v54i1.3361

[66] Lateif B, Abdaljaleel RK, Khaleefah I, Mohammad S, Megdad NH, Najem H. Pathology and molecular comprehensive study of fowl adenovirus in broiler chicken in Basrah, Iraq. Korean Journal of Veterinary Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14405/kjvr.20250016

[67] Sohaimi N, Hamsa NN, Bejo M, Mazlan M, Clifford UC. Pathological Changes and Virus Detection in Chickens Infected with Fowl Adenovirus 8b. Jurnal Ilmu Ternak dan Veteriner. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14334/jitv.v30i3.3502

[68] Chitradevi S, Sukumar K, Balasubramaniam GA, Arulmozhi A. Sequential pathology of fowl adenovirus serotype 11 in experimentally infected chicken. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v95i3.150639

[69] Thaeer W. Histopathological Investigation of Fowl Adenovirus (FAdV) Infections in Broiler Chickens: A Study in Diyala Governorate. Diyala Journal for Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.71375/djvs.2025.03104

[70] Yao R, He X, Lai J, Zhang S, Zhang R, Zeng R, et al.. Systematic identification of chicken type I and III interferon-stimulated genes with antiviral potential against fowl adenovirus serotype 4. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.105380

[71] Lee R, Song H, Kim J, Sung H, Kwon H, Hunter CA, et al.. Genetic regulation of short chain fatty acid on Leghorn male hepatoma cells infected with Fowl Adenovirus serotype-4.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2025.110571

[72] Feng X, Yin D, Fang T, Zhao C, Yue J, Zhu E, et al.. Fowl adenovirus serotype 4 (FAdV-4) infection induces inflammatory responses in chicken embryonic cardiac fibroblasts via PI3K/Akt and IκBα/NF-κB signaling pathways.. Research in Veterinary Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2024.105349

[73] Lou M, Shi H, Cao X, Li J, Zhang R, Pan Q, et al.. Growth retardation and immunosuppression in SPF chickens infected by fowl adenovirus serotype-8b isolated in China. Veterinaria México OA. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/fmvz.24486760e.2024.1265

[74] Hamer N, Abotaleb MM, Elbestawy A, Torky H, Kaliel S. Isolation, molecular and biological characterization of Fowl Adenovirus-D serotype 2 from infected commercial broilers in Egypt during 2024. Alexandria Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/ajvs.254920

[75] Helmy M, Adel A, Hassan A, Doghim R. Molecular, Histopathological, and Immunohistochemical Characteristics of Fowl Adenovirus, Serotype 7 (Species E), in Egyptian Broiler Breeders: First Report. Egyptian Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/ejvs.2024.285912.2044

[76] Nuñez LFN, Santander-Parra S, Catroxo M, Astolfi-Ferreira C, Loor-Giler A, Ferreira AP. Fowl adenovirus 8a isolated from chickens with runting and stunting syndrome induces inclusion body hepatitis and hepatitis-hydropericardium syndrome in chicken embryos. Veterinary World. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2024.2556-2566

[77] Khabiri A, Ghalyanchilangeroudi A, Doan PTK, Pakbaz M, Pakbaten B, Hemmatzadeh F. The complete genome sequence of a new fowl adenovirus (Fadv-4) strain from a recent outbreak in a chicken farm in Iran. Microbiology Resource Announcements. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mra.00057-24

[78] Ma H, Zhou Y, Wang S, Xie X, Chen R, Zheng Q, et al.. An optimized sandwich ELISA for quantitative detection of fowl adenovirus serotype 4 (FAdV-4) in chickens. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.106259

[79] Liu S, Tang Y, Li T, Wan Z, Shao H, Qin A, et al.. A novel recombinant serotype 4 fowl adenovirus efficiently protects both serotype 4 and 11 fowl adenovirus.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2025.110772

[80] Dai Y, Zhong Y, Xu F, Gu S, Zhou H, Wang J, et al.. Development and evaluation of three multienzyme isothermal rapid amplification assays for fowl adenovirus serotype 4. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104452

[81] Ather F, Zia MA, Habib M, Shah MS. Development of an ELISA for the detection of fowl adenovirus serotype -4 utilizing fiber protein.. Biologicals (Print). 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2024.101752

[82] Almaaroof AR, Allawe AB, Jabbar R.. Isolation and Molecular Detection of Fowl Adenovirus Associated with Inclusion Body Hepatitis in Broiler Chickens in Iraq. Al-Anbar Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37940/ajvs.2024.17.2.5

[83] Ugwu CC, Hair-Bejo M, Nurulfiza M, Omar A, Ideris A. Efficacy, immunogenicity, and virus shedding in broiler chickens inoculated with live attenuated fowl adenovirus serotype 8b propagated a bioreactor. Open Veterinary Journal. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/OVJ.2024.v14.i2.2

[84] Wang X, Zhao K, Lei B, Jiang W, Qiao Y, Yuan W. A Novel Chimeric Fiber-C4/D11 Subunit Vaccine Induces Cross-Neutralizing Antibodies and Provides Better Protection Against Fowl Adenovirus (FAdV) Type 4 and Type 11 Than the Fiber-D11/C4 Subunit Vaccine. Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12090920

[85] Wang B, Tian M, Yang Y, Jia Z, Anjum FR, Ma C, et al.. Effect of microencapsulated Fiber2-displaying probiotics loaded with inulin nanoparticles on immunity against fowl adenovirus serotype 4 in chickens. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104762

[86] Li Y, Zhou H, Li B, Li J, Shen Y, Jiang Y, et al.. Immunoprotection of FliBc chimeric fiber2 fusion proteins targeting dendritic cells against Fowl adenovirus serotype 4 infection. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103474

[87] Lee R, Sung H, Cheong H, Park J. Protective immune response induced by Leghorn male hepatoma cell-adapted fowl adenovirus-4. Heliyon. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25366

[88] Lin Y, Jiang W, Ma L, Zhang J, Tang Y, Kan Q, et al.. Protective Efficacy of an Inactivated Recombinant Serotype 4 Fowl Adenovirus Against Duck Adenovirus 3 in Muscovy Duck. Vaccines. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12121357