Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus

Overview and Taxonomy of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus

Infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV) is the etiological agent of infectious laryngotracheitis (ILT), an acute, highly contagious respiratory disease that constitutes one of the most economically significant viral threats to global poultry production. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) classifies ILT as a notifiable disease due to its rapid spread, high morbidity (up to 100%), and potential for mortality rates that can exceed 70% in susceptible flocks [16]. ILTV inflicts severe losses through mortality, decreased egg production, reduced weight gain, and costs associated with vaccination and disease control, with single outbreaks costing producers over one million US dollars [16]. The virus is endemic in many poultry-producing regions worldwide, causing sporadic outbreaks that devastate both commercial and backyard flocks [1, 6, 10, 20].

Taxonomic Classification and Nomenclature

ILTV is a member of the family Herpesviridae, subfamily Alphaherpesvirinae, genus Iltovirus [1, 2, 9, 33]. The formal species designation is Gallid alphaherpesvirus 1 (GaHV-1) [2, 6, 8, 18]. This taxonomic placement aligns ILTV with other alphaherpesviruses that share biological properties such as rapid lytic replication in epithelial cells, establishment of latency in sensory ganglia, and the capacity for reactivation under stress [3, 36]. Unlike many mammalian alphaherpesviruses, ILTV is highly host-restricted, primarily infecting galliform birds, particularly chickens, turkeys, and pheasants [1, 9, 13]. The virus was first described in 1925 and has since been recognized globally as a major respiratory pathogen of poultry [31].

Virion Structure and Genomic Organization

The ILTV virion is enveloped with a characteristic icosahedral capsid approximately 100–120 nm in diameter, surrounded by a tegument layer and a lipid envelope studded with multiple glycoproteins essential for attachment, entry, cell-to-cell spread, and immune evasion [1, 19]. The genome consists of a double-stranded DNA molecule approximately 151–155 kilobase pairs in length, making ILTV one of the largest among the alphaherpesviruses [2, 16, 17]. The genome is organized into unique long (UL) and unique short (US) regions, each flanked by inverted repeat sequences (TRL/IRL and TRS/IRS), a architecture typical of alphaherpesviruses [16]. More than 80 open reading frames (ORFs) have been identified, encoding proteins involved in DNA replication, capsid assembly, envelope formation, and modulation of host immune responses [17, 25].

A landmark discovery in ILTV genomics is the identification of a viral homolog of interleukin-4 (vIL-4), a highly spliced gene with a three-intron structure precisely conserved with vertebrate IL-4 genes [3, 12]. This virokine is expressed during infection and functions as a virulence factor by modulating the host immune response, stimulating nitric oxide production in macrophages, and enhancing viral pathogenicity in vivo [3]. The presence of vIL-4 represents a clear example of molecular mimicry, wherein the virus has captured a host cytokine gene to subvert immune defenses [3]. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that vIL-4 was acquired directly from a Galliformes host, highlighting the evolutionary arms race between ILTV and its avian hosts [3].

Viral Replication and Pathogenesis Overview

ILTV exhibits a pronounced tropism for the epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract, particularly the conjunctiva, larynx, and trachea [1, 15, 29]. Following ocular or respiratory inoculation, the virus undergoes lytic replication in mucosal epithelial cells, leading to the characteristic cytopathic effects: syncytia formation, intranuclear inclusion bodies (Cowdry type A), and extensive necrosis with hemorrhage [6, 24, 37]. Infected epithelial cells slough, forming diphtheritic membranes or fibrinohemorrhagic casts that obstruct the airway, resulting in severe dyspnea, gasping, expectoration of bloody mucus, and often death [13, 21, 24].

The acute phase of infection is followed by the establishment of latency, primarily in the trigeminal ganglia and to a lesser extent in the trachea [32, 36]. Latent ILTV can reactivate under stress conditions (e.g., overcrowding, poor ventilation, onset of lay, concurrent infections), leading to virus shedding and subsequent transmission to naive birds [3, 7, 20]. This latency-reactivation cycle perpetuates the virus within flocks and complicates eradication efforts [32, 39]. The peripheral blood of infected chickens also carries ILTV DNA in various leukocyte subsets, including CD4+, CD8+, TCRγδ+, and B cells, suggesting that viremia may contribute to systemic dissemination, although viral antigen is largely restricted to respiratory tissues during acute infection [23, 29].

Strain Classification and Genotypes

ILTV strains are broadly categorized into wild-type (virulent field strains) and vaccine-derived strains, including chicken embryo origin (CEO) vaccines, tissue culture origin (TCO) vaccines, and recombinant vector vaccines [7, 14, 15, 34]. Molecular characterization using polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) of multiple genes (e.g., gB, gM, UL47/gG) initially defined nine genotypes (I–IX) circulating in the United States [34]. More recently, amplicon sequencing of a single allele (ORF A/ORF B) has been shown to discriminate ILTV into five major genotypes that correlate with whole-genome phylogenies: vaccinal TCO, vaccinal CEO, virulent CEO-like, virulent US, and virulent US backyard flock isolates [34].

Phylogenetic analyses of partial ICP4, gB, gG, and TK genes have revealed the global distribution of these genotypes and their relationships. In Brazil, genotype VI viruses caused severe outbreaks in meat-type poultry, spreading rapidly among broiler, layer, and breeder flocks in high-density poultry regions [4]. Turkish ILTV isolates from layer and broiler flocks cluster with strains from China, Australia, and the USA based on gB phylogeny, while gG sequences show affinity with strains from Russia, Canada, and Italy [5]. A unique 18-base-pair insertion in the ICP4 gene was identified in Turkish isolates, highlighting ongoing genomic diversification [5].

In Egypt, recent outbreaks (2023) were caused by both CEO- and TCO-related vaccine-like strains, with some strains exhibiting specific mutations in ICP4 (Q161H, Q182H), gD (A34G, P276L), and TK (R115I, G126A, S163I, A99E) that may affect virulence and pathogenicity [7]. These mutations likely arose through reactivation of vaccine strains following bird-to-bird passage or viral recombination [7]. Similarly, vaccine-like strains dominate in Canada, where CEO revertant viruses have been linked to outbreaks, alongside a minority of wild-type strains [14, 18, 30].

Evolutionary Insights and Recombination

Recombination is a major driver of ILTV evolution, leading to the emergence of novel virulent strains that complicate disease control. In Australia, the emergence of recombinant classes (e.g., class 9, class 10) has been well-documented; these viruses arose from recombination between vaccine strains and circulating field viruses, resulting in strains with enhanced pathogenicity and transmissibility [28]. Whole-genome sequencing of Canadian isolates has confirmed that historical recombination events between CEO vaccines have generated recombinant ILTVs with unique genetic signatures [17, 25]. An ILTV isolate from British Columbia was found to be a recombinant between two CEO vaccine strains, and an Alberta isolate was identified as a potential parental strain for a US isolate [25].

Korean field strains (40798/10/Ko, 0206/14/Ko) are closely related to the Serva vaccine strain, displaying few non-synonymous SNPs, while strain 307678/14/Ko shows clear evidence of recombination between a Serva-like progenitor and an Australian A20 vaccine-like strain [38]. In China, recombination was detected in three of seven sequenced field isolates, with one isolate (LN2018) clustering with wild-type viruses while remaining isolates grouped with CEO vaccine-like strains [15]. These findings underscore that recombination not only generates genetic diversity but can also restore virulence to attenuated vaccine strains, thereby exacerbating ILT outbreaks.

Global Distribution and Epidemiological Significance

ILTV is distributed worldwide, with serological and molecular evidence of infection in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania [1, 6, 8, 10, 11]. Seroprevalence studies in Ethiopia (19.4%), Chile (exposure in 88% of backyard farms), and Brazil (95.4% seropositivity in 2020) illustrate the widespread circulation of the virus even in regions without clinical outbreaks [6, 8, 10]. The virus can be transmitted both by direct contact and airborne routes, with field strains showing higher airborne transmissibility than vaccine strains [22, 26]. Poultry dust from infected flocks contains high levels of ILTV DNA, and testing of dust has proven valuable for monitoring vaccination efficacy and detecting subclinical infections, contributing to successful eradication programs (e.g., in South Australia) [20, 27, 35].

In summary, ILTV is a prototypical alphaherpesvirus that combines a highly lytic respiratory phase with lifelong latency, a complex genomic arsenal including captured cytokine genes, and a rapidly evolving population driven by recombination between vaccine and field strains. Its taxonomy reflects not only its herpesviral heritage but also its dynamic capacity for adaptation, posing a continuous challenge to poultry health management and vaccine strategy development worldwide.

Molecular Pathogenesis and Virulence Factors of ILTV

Infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV; Gallid alphaherpesvirus 1) is a member of the Alphaherpesvirinae subfamily, a lineage renowned for establishing lifelong latent infections in sensory ganglia and employing sophisticated molecular arsenals to subvert host immunity. The pathogenesis of ILTV is a multifaceted process orchestrated by a suite of viral gene products that govern cellular entry, intercellular spread, immune evasion, latency, and reactivation. Understanding these molecular determinants is not merely an academic exercise; it is fundamental to rational vaccine design and the development of therapeutic interventions against a pathogen that causes up to 100% morbidity and 70% mortality in naïve flocks, with single outbreak costs exceeding one million dollars [16]. The virus’s 151-kb double-stranded DNA genome encodes over 80 open reading frames, many of which are dedicated to modulating the host environment to favor viral replication and persistence [16, 38].

The Virokine Arsenal: Molecular Mimicry and Immune Subversion

Perhaps the most striking revelation in recent ILTV research is the discovery of a functional viral homolog of interleukin-4 (vIL-4), a landmark finding that redefines our understanding of ILTV’s immunomodulatory capacity [3, 12]. This gene, identified through full-length cDNA sequencing, exhibits a three-intron structure precisely conserved with vertebrate IL-4 homologs, strongly suggesting direct genomic capture from a Galliformes host. The mature vIL-4 protein is 147 amino acids in length and displays structural conservation at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. Critically, the vIL-4 transcript is highly expressed both in vitro and in vivo, and its protein product was confirmed in infected cells via LC-MS/MS [3]. Functional assays demonstrated that vIL-4 stimulates nitric oxide production in a macrophage cell line at levels comparable to recombinant chicken IL-4, indicating authentic biological activity. The significance of this virokine for pathogenesis was confirmed in vivo: a recombinant virus lacking vIL-4 exhibited reduced pathogenicity compared to the wild-type virus, establishing vIL-4 as a bona fide virulence factor [3, 12]. This represents a novel mechanism of immune evasion for ILTV, as the vIL-4 likely skews the host immune response away from a protective Th1-type, cell-mediated response toward a less effective Th2-biased humoral response, thereby facilitating viral persistence and replication. This discovery expands the known repertoire of herpesvirus-encoded cytokine mimics, placing ILTV alongside human herpesviruses that encode IL-6, IL-10, and IL-17 homologs [3].

Beyond vIL-4, ILTV employs a multi-pronged strategy to dismantle host defenses. The glycoprotein G (gG) has been identified as a virulence factor, as its deletion results in a safe and efficacious live-attenuated vaccine (ΔgG-ILTV) [36, 40]. Transcriptomic analyses of chickens vaccinated with ΔgG-ILTV and subsequently challenged with virulent virus revealed a remarkable preservation of tracheal mucosal integrity. In contrast, non-vaccinated, challenged birds exhibited a tracheal transcriptome characterized by heightened immune responses, impairments to ciliary and neuronal functions, disruption of cell junction components, and damage to cartilaginous and extracellular matrix components [40]. This suggests that gG plays a critical role in inducing the severe tracheal pathology characteristic of ILT, likely by modulating chemokine and cytokine signaling to promote an exaggerated, tissue-destructive inflammatory response. The absence of gG prevents this pathological cascade, allowing for a controlled immune response that clears the virus without causing severe tissue damage.

Glycoprotein-Mediated Pathogenesis: Entry, Spread, and Cellular Tropism

The viral glycoproteins are the primary determinants of cellular tropism and intercellular spread, and several have been directly linked to virulence. Glycoproteins E and I (gE and gI) form a heterodimer that is essential for efficient cell-to-cell spread in alphaherpesviruses. In ILTV, deletion of either gE or gI from both field and vaccine strains (CSW-1 and A20) using traditional homologous recombination and CRISPR/Cas9-assisted techniques resulted in mutant viruses that could not be propagated separately from wild-type virus in either primary chicken cells or the LMH continuous cell line [19]. This absolute requirement for gE/gI underscores their critical role in direct cell-to-cell transmission, a mechanism that allows the virus to evade humoral immunity and spread within the host even in the presence of neutralizing antibodies. The inability to generate stable single-deletion mutants highlights the essential nature of these glycoproteins for ILTV replication in vitro, a finding that contrasts with some other alphaherpesviruses where single deletions are viable, albeit with reduced spread [19].

Glycoprotein C (gC) has also been implicated in virulence. A gC-deleted recombinant ILTV (ILTV-ΔgC) was constructed and found to be avirulent in chickens, yet it demonstrated an increased penetration capacity and replication rate in vitro and in vivo compared to the parental virus [46]. This paradoxical finding suggests that gC may be involved in modulating the host immune response or in the delicate balance between lytic replication and latency. The deletion of gC, while attenuating the virus, may inadvertently remove a regulatory element that normally restricts replication, leading to the observed increase in growth kinetics. This highlights the complex, often non-linear relationship between individual gene functions and overall viral pathogenesis.

Glycoprotein B (gB) is a major immunogen and a target for vaccine development, but it also plays a role in pathogenesis. A unique T441P point mutation in the gJ protein of a Chinese ILTV isolate was associated with robust propagation on chorioallantoic membranes but a failure to establish effective infection in LMH cells, suggesting that specific residues in gJ, a protein that complexes with gE, can dramatically alter cell tropism and virulence [41]. Furthermore, the thymidine kinase (TK) gene, a classic virulence factor in many herpesviruses, has been a target for attenuation. Specific mutations in the TK gene, such as R115I, G126A, and S163I identified in Egyptian isolates, are associated with altered virulence and pathogenicity [7]. The TK enzyme is crucial for nucleotide metabolism in non-dividing cells, such as neurons, and its disruption typically impairs the virus's ability to replicate in these cells, thereby reducing neurovirulence and the capacity for efficient reactivation from latency [7, 45].

Latency, Reactivation, and the Molecular Basis of Persistence

The ability to establish latency in the trigeminal ganglia (TG) and trachea is a hallmark of ILTV pathogenesis and a major obstacle to disease control. Latency allows the virus to persist within a flock, reactivating during periods of stress (e.g., onset of lay, co-infections) and shedding virus to perpetuate outbreaks [32, 36]. Molecular studies have shown that both vaccine and field strains of ILTV can establish latency, but with differing efficiencies. In one study, ILTV DNA was detected in the TG of 57.5% of vaccinated SPF chickens at 20-21 days post-vaccination, with the SA2 vaccine strain establishing latency more efficiently (100% of birds) than the Serva strain (30%) or a ΔgG deletion mutant (40%) [36]. This differential capacity to establish latency has profound implications for vaccine safety, as a vaccine that readily establishes latency may be more prone to reactivation and reversion to virulence.

The molecular mechanisms governing reactivation are being elucidated. In vitro reactivation studies using co-cultivation of TG and tracheal explants have shown that latent ILTV can be reactivated within 6 days post-explant, with the virus being detected by PCR before cytopathic effects are visible [32, 39]. This suggests that the viral genome is rapidly activated upon the removal of host immune pressure. The detection of ILTV DNA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), specifically in CD4+, CD8+, TCRγδ+, and B cells, but not in monocytes or erythrocytes, indicates that these cells may serve as vehicles for viral dissemination during reactivation, transporting the virus from the site of latency to the peripheral mucosal surfaces [23, 29]. The presence of ILTV antigen in these lymphocyte subsets, as detected by immunofluorescent staining for gE, provides direct evidence of viral tropism for these cells [23].

Recombination as a Driver of Virulence and Emergence

One of the most alarming aspects of ILTV pathogenesis is the propensity for recombination between different strains, particularly between vaccine and field viruses, leading to the emergence of novel, highly virulent recombinants. This phenomenon has been extensively documented in Australia, where the dominant circulating strains (class 9 and class 10) are natural recombinants that have replaced their parental strains [28, 44]. Whole-genome sequencing has revealed that these recombinants possess unique combinations of genes from different vaccine strains (e.g., Serva and A20) and field viruses, resulting in enhanced virulence and transmission [28, 38]. For instance, class 9 and class 10 ILTV cause severe clinical signs, high mortality, and significantly higher viral loads in oropharyngeal swabs compared to the mildly virulent class 14 strain [43, 44].

Recombination is not a rare event; it occurs readily under field conditions where multiple vaccine strains are used. A study demonstrated that superinfection of chickens with two genetically distinct live-attenuated vaccines, even with intervals of up to 4 days between inoculations, resulted in the detection of recombinant progeny in tracheal swabs [31]. This highlights the risk associated with using different vaccine types within the same flock or region. The recombination events are not random; they often occur at specific genomic hotspots, such as the inverted repeat regions, and can involve the exchange of large genomic segments [25, 38]. The resulting recombinants can exhibit a "best-of-both-worlds" phenotype, combining the replication fitness of a field virus with the immune evasion properties of a vaccine strain, leading to outbreaks that are difficult to control with existing vaccines [25, 42]. In Canada, for example, CEO vaccine revertant strains have been shown to possess higher virulence and dissemination potential compared to wild-type isolates, directly linking vaccine use to the emergence of more pathogenic viruses [42]. The identification of unique 18-bp insertions in the ICP4 gene of Turkish strains and specific non-synonymous SNPs in the gB, gG, and TK genes of Egyptian isolates further underscores the ongoing evolution of ILTV through mutation and recombination, constantly generating new genetic variants with potentially altered pathogenic properties [5, 7].

Epidemiology and Global Impact of Infectious Laryngotracheitis

Infectious laryngotracheitis (ILT), caused by Gallid alphaherpesvirus 1 (GaHV-1), stands as one of the most economically burdensome respiratory pathogens confronting the global poultry industry. Its epidemiology is a complex tapestry woven from viral latency, vaccine-driven evolution, heterogeneous production systems, and regional biosecurity practices. The virus exacts its toll through direct mortality, diminished growth performance, catastrophic drops in egg production, and the substantial costs associated with vaccination campaigns and outbreak containment. Understanding the global distribution, transmission dynamics, risk factors, and the paradoxical role of vaccination in shaping field strain populations is essential for designing effective, regionally adapted control strategies.

Global Distribution, Seroprevalence, and Endemicity

ILTV is recognized as a ubiquitous pathogen with a worldwide distribution, though its prevalence and the clinical impact it exerts vary dramatically based on geographic region, poultry density, and vaccination history. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) lists ILT as a notifiable disease, underscoring its significance to international poultry trade and food security. Sporadic outbreaks and endemic circulation are reported across all continents, with the virus posing a persistent threat to both commercial intensive operations and backyard or village-level production systems [1, 9].

Serological surveys provide a stark illustration of the virus’s reach. In southern Brazil, a two-year surveillance study in layer farms revealed a staggering 95.4% farm-level seropositivity in 2020 within a high-density poultry region, with 88.1% of those farms also testing qPCR-positive, indicating active viral circulation [6]. This underscores how rapidly ILTV can become entrenched once introduced into a naive, high-density population. By contrast, studies in Ethiopia have reported an overall seroprevalence of 19.4%, with significantly higher rates in backyard chickens (22.9%) compared to commercial operations (14.2%), highlighting the role of management intensity in modulating exposure risk [8, 47, 53]. In central Chile, a survey of backyard poultry found widespread serological evidence of exposure to ILTV, raising concerns that these small-scale flocks could act as reservoirs for the virus, threatening the adjacent commercial sector [10]. Similarly, in Bangladesh, a molecular prevalence of 5.14% was documented, with layers showing a higher infection rate (6.5%) than broilers (3.33%), and a distinct seasonality with peaks during the winter months [52]. These data points collectively illustrate a global pattern: ILTV is endemic in many regions, with prevalence modulated by production type, flock density, and climatic conditions.

The Paradox of Vaccination: Vaccine-Derived Outbreaks and Recombination

Perhaps the most defining feature of ILTV epidemiology in the modern era is the profound and often paradoxical impact of live attenuated vaccines. While vaccination with chicken embryo origin (CEO) and tissue culture origin (TCO) vaccines remains the cornerstone of control, a growing body of molecular evidence demonstrates that these very vaccines are a primary source of field outbreaks. Numerous studies across the globe have phylogenetically linked circulating field strains directly to vaccine viruses, indicating that vaccine strains can revert to virulence, recombine with other strains, or establish latency and reactivate, leading to clinical disease in vaccinated and unvaccinated flocks alike [5, 7, 15, 17, 25, 30, 31, 38, 51].

In Egypt, molecular characterization of ILTV strains from 2023 outbreaks revealed that the vast majority of circulating viruses clustered either with CEO or TCO vaccine groups, harboring specific mutations in the ICP4, gD, and TK genes that may be associated with enhanced virulence or altered pathogenicity [7]. One strain even exhibited a unique 18-bp insertion in the ICP4 gene, a potential marker for vaccine-derived evolution. This scenario is echoed in Turkey, where a study of 119 flocks identified ILTV in 14.28% of sampled flocks, with phylogenetic analysis of the gB, gG, and ICP4 genes showing close clustering with vaccine strains from China, Australia, and the USA [5]. In Brazil, a sudden cluster of severe outbreaks in meat-type poultry was traced to a single genotype VI virus that was non-vaccine in origin, but its rapid spread across multiple companies highlighted the critical role of high-density poultry regions and potential fomite or airborne transmission, even when vaccines are not the direct cause [4].

The issue is most acute with CEO vaccines. Studies in Canada have demonstrated that CEO vaccine revertant strains are now responsible for a majority of ILT outbreaks in commercial flocks, with these revertants exhibiting higher virulence and greater transmission potential compared to wild-type strains circulating in the region [18, 42]. Whole-genome sequencing of Canadian isolates has confirmed the presence of historical recombination events between vaccine and field strains, creating novel viruses with unpredictable pathogenic properties [17, 25]. This phenomenon is not isolated. In South Korea, the complete genome sequences of three virulent field strains revealed that two were clearly derived from the Serva vaccine strain, while a third was a recombinant between the Serva vaccine and the Australian A20 vaccine strain, providing clear evidence that natural recombination is a major driver of the emergence of virulent revertant strains [38]. Similarly, in Australia, the emergence of recombinant classes 9 and 10 ILTV, which now dominate the field, has been linked to recombination between different live attenuated vaccines, with these novel strains exhibiting markedly higher virulence than their parental vaccine strains [28, 31, 43, 44].

This epidemiological paradigm, where the primary control tool becomes a source of new field problems, has profound implications. The practice of administering multiple different live vaccines within a single flock, or revaccinating with a different strain, creates conditions favorable for superinfection and recombination within the host, a process experimentally demonstrated to occur under a broad range of infection intervals [31]. Consequently, the epidemiological landscape is not static; it is a dynamic evolutionary arms race where vaccination practices directly shape the genetic and pathogenic diversity of circulating ILTV populations.

Transmission Dynamics: Airborne Spread, Dust, and the Role of Fomites

Understanding how ILTV moves between flocks is critical for designing effective biosecurity. The virus is shed primarily in respiratory secretions, with transmission occurring via direct bird-to-bird contact, aerosols, and contaminated fomites. Experimental studies have confirmed that airborne transmission is a highly efficient route for field strains of ILTV, with 100% transmission to susceptible in-contact birds achieved within 14 days of exposure. However, this efficiency varies dramatically among strains; the A20 vaccine virus, for instance, exhibited significantly reduced airborne transmission, reaching only 27% of sentinel birds over 21 days [22, 26]. This differential transmission potential between wild-type and vaccine strains has important epidemiological implications for the persistence and spread of virulent viruses.

Poultry dust has emerged as a critical matrix for population-level monitoring and as a potential vehicle for transmission. High levels of ILTV DNA are shed into the environment, accumulating in house dust, which can remain PCR-positive for months under dry conditions, regardless of storage temperature [27]. This has led to the development of qPCR-based dust monitoring programs as a cost-effective tool for assessing vaccine take and detecting incursions. In a landmark study from South Australia, routine monitoring of dust samples using qPCR, combined with viral typing, was instrumental in guiding a statewide control program that ultimately led to the eradication of ILT from the region, demonstrating the power of surveillance-driven intervention [20]. Despite the detection of high levels of DNA in dust and excreta, direct transmission from these matrices appears to be inefficient; studies have failed to demonstrate infectivity of dust extracts or excreta from infected chickens, suggesting that the virus in these environments is largely inactivated or present in a non-infectious form [22, 26]. This does not diminish their value as surveillance tools but clarifies that the primary transmission risk comes from acutely infected birds shedding high titers of infectious virus via aerosols and direct contact.

Risk Factors and the Role of Production Systems

The epidemiology of ILTV is heavily influenced by production system structure and management practices. A consistent finding across multiple geographic regions is that backyard and smallholder poultry flocks are at significantly higher risk of infection and seropositivity compared to intensively managed commercial flocks. This has been documented in Ethiopia [8, 47, 53], Chile [10], and Canada [18]. Backyard flocks often have limited biosecurity, multi-age structures, free-range access, and introduction of new birds without quarantine, all factors that facilitate the introduction, circulation, and persistence of ILTV. The multivariate analysis of risk factors in southern Brazil identified flock replacement with older chickens as a significant risk factor for ILT in 2021, pointing to the importance of age-segregated all-in/all-out management in reducing virus transmission [6].

Co-infection is a critical but often underappreciated epidemiological factor. ILTV rarely operates in isolation. Surveys from Turkey have demonstrated that co-infections with other respiratory pathogens such as infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) are common; in one study, 5 out of 8 ILTV-positive flocks were also positive for IBV [48, 50]. Such polymicrobial infections can exacerbate clinical severity, prolong disease, and complicate diagnosis, making epidemiological interpretation more challenging. The presence of secondary bacterial infections, particularly Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, further compounds the clinical picture [49]. From a global impact perspective, these interactions amplify the economic losses attributable to ILTV by increasing mortality, treatment costs, and condemnations at processing.

Economic and Pathobiological Burden

The global economic impact of ILTV is substantial, driven by high morbidity (up to 100%) and mortality that can reach 70% in susceptible, unvaccinated flocks [16]. A single outbreak in a large commercial operation can cost producers over a million dollars when factoring in direct mortality, decreased egg production, growth suppression, vaccination costs, and the implementation of quarantine and depopulation measures [16]. The virus induces severe, acute respiratory disease characterized by hemorrhagic tracheitis, fibrinous casts, and conjunctivitis, with histopathological lesions including syncytial cell formation and characteristic intranuclear inclusion bodies [5, 6, 13]. The recent discovery of a functional viral interleukin-4 (vIL-4) homolog encoded in the ILTV genome represents a significant leap in understanding the molecular basis of its virulence. This virokine, directly captured from a Galliformes host, modulates the host immune response, and its deletion from the viral genome results in reduced pathogenicity in vivo, identifying it as a key virulence factor [3, 12]. This finding opens new avenues for understanding how the virus manipulates the host immune system to cause disease, with direct implications for vaccine design and the development of targeted therapeutics.

The latency-reactivation cycle is another epidemiological cornerstone that profoundly impacts the global persistence of ILTV. Following acute infection, the virus establishes lifelong latency in the trigeminal ganglia, with the capacity to reactivate under stress, such as the onset of lay, transport, or concurrent disease, leading to renewed shedding and transmission to naive cohorts [32, 36, 39]. Both vaccine and field strains can establish latency, a fact that underlies the difficulty of eradicating the virus once it is introduced into a region [36]. The ability of vaccine viruses to establish latency in commercial layers has been directly demonstrated, providing a mechanism by which vaccination itself can contribute to viral persistence in a population [36, 39]. This epidemiological reality demands that control programs consider the entire flock lifecycle and the potential for latently infected carriers to trigger future outbreaks.

In conclusion, the epidemiology of infectious laryngotracheitis is a global challenge defined by high endemicity in many regions, a problematic reliance on live vaccines that can themselves generate virulent field strains through reversion and recombination, and efficient transmission through respiratory aerosols. The virus's ability to establish latency, combined with the structural risks inherent in backyard and multi-age production systems, ensures its continued circulation and impact. Addressing this complex epidemiology requires a multifaceted approach: enhanced biosecurity, the development and strategic deployment of safer vectored and gene-deleted vaccines that do not revert to virulence, routine molecular surveillance to track circulating strains and detect recombination events, and a clear-eyed understanding that vaccination is not a panacea but must be carefully managed to avoid exacerbating the very problem it seeks to solve.

Clinical Manifestations and Pathological Features in Poultry

Infectious laryngotracheitis (ILT), caused by Gallid alphaherpesvirus 1 (GaHV-1), remains one of the most economically devastating respiratory diseases confronting the global poultry industry. The clinical manifestations and pathological features observed in affected flocks are not merely a catalog of signs and lesions; they represent the complex interplay between a highly cytolytic alphaherpesvirus and the avian host's immune defenses. As a pathogen classified under the Herpesviridae family, ILTV exhibits a remarkable capacity for acute lytic replication in the upper respiratory tract epithelium, followed by the establishment of lifelong latency, a cycle that underpins its persistence and sporadic outbreaks worldwide [1, 16]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes ILT as a notifiable disease in many regions, underscoring its critical economic impact due to high morbidity, mortality, and production losses [2, 16]. Understanding the complete spectrum of clinical disease and its underlying pathological basis is fundamental for differential diagnosis, timely intervention, and the design of effective control strategies.

The Spectrum of Clinical Disease

The clinical presentation of ILTV infection is highly variable, ranging from subclinical infections to peracute disease with explosive mortality, a spectrum dictated by viral strain virulence, host immune status, age, and environmental factors [43, 44]. The incubation period typically ranges from 5 to 12 days following natural exposure, after which the onset of clinical signs is often abrupt [1].

Peracute and Acute Forms

In its most severe, classic form, ILT manifests as a severe, fulminant respiratory crisis. Affected birds are often found dead without premonitory signs, but in peracute cases, mortality can spike dramatically within 24–48 hours, reaching as high as 70% in susceptible flocks [16]. Birds that survive the initial onslaught exhibit profound dyspnea, characterized by inspiratory and expiratory efforts with audible rales and a characteristic "pump-handle" respiration as they extend the head and neck to facilitate air movement. A pathognomonic sign is the expectoration of blood-stained mucus or fibrinous casts, which can often be seen adherent to the feathers and surrounding environment [5, 21, 56]. This hemorrhagic exudate is a direct consequence of severe mucosal necrosis and erosion of underlying capillaries [21]. Severe conjunctivitis with frothy ocular discharge, periocular swelling, and sinusitis are also prominent features, reflecting the tropism of ILTV for the conjunctival-associated lymphoid tissue (CALT) [5, 43, 60].

Mild and Subclinical Forms

Not all ILTV infections result in such dramatic pathology. Enzootic or milder forms of the disease are increasingly recognized, characterized by depression, reduced feed and water intake, drops in egg production (often up to 50%), and mild to moderate respiratory signs such as serous nasal discharge, tracheal rales, and conjunctivitis [5, 6, 56]. This form is particularly insidious, as it can easily be mistaken for other respiratory pathogens like infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) or avian metapneumovirus (aMPV), leading to diagnostic delays and continued viral spread [1, 9]. Subclinical infections, often associated with low-virulence vaccine strains or partial immunity, are also critical to the epidemiology of ILTV, as these birds can shed virus and act as reservoirs [36, 43]. The clinical outcome is ultimately determined by the balance between viral cytopathology and the host's cellular immune response, with severe disease resulting from uncontrolled lytic replication.

Gross Pathological Lesions

The hallmark of ILTV infection is pronounced, often hemorrhagic tracheitis. At necropsy, the trachea and larynx are the primary sites of pathology. In acute cases, the mucosal surface is intensely congested and edematous, with the lumen containing varying amounts of bloody exudate, fibrinous casts, or caseous plugs that can partially or completely occlude the airway, leading to asphyxiation [21, 51, 56]. The severity of the lesions can be categorized into distinct stages: catarrhal, fibrino-necrotic, and hemorrhagic [21]. Diphtheritic or caseous membranes may be present, firmly adherent to the underlying mucosa, and are composed of necrotic epithelium, fibrin, and inflammatory cells [24, 37]. In less severe cases, the lesions may be limited to diffuse congestion, petechial hemorrhages, and a thickened, roughened mucosal surface.

Gross lesions are not confined to the trachea. Conjunctivitis, characterized by chemosis and hyperemia of the conjunctival membranes, is a consistent finding, particularly following ocular exposure [5, 43]. Swelling of the infraorbital sinuses with mucoid to purulent exudate is also common [5]. The lungs and air sacs may appear congested, but primary ILTV pneumonia is rare; however, the severe upper airway obstruction can lead to secondary bacterial pneumonia and airsacculitis, which often confounds the pathological picture and increases mortality [1]. The presence of these lesions, especially the classic "bloody trachea," is highly suggestive of ILT but requires laboratory confirmation, as similar gross pathology can be induced by virulent strains of Newcastle disease virus (NDV) or avian influenza virus (AIV) [9].

Histopathological Hallmarks and Cellular Pathogenesis

The microscopic pathology of ILTV infection is characterized by a highly lytic, necrotizing inflammation of the respiratory epithelium. The virus has a pronounced tropism for the epithelial cells of the trachea, larynx, conjunctiva, and, to a lesser extent, the lung [29]. The earliest histological changes include epithelial cell swelling, loss of cilia, and hydropic degeneration. As the infection progresses, the epithelium undergoes widespread necrosis and sloughing, often leading to the formation of the diphtheritic membranes observed grossly [24, 37].

Syncytial Cells and Intranuclear Inclusion Bodies

Two histopathological features are considered pathognomonic for ILTV infection: the formation of syncytial cells (multinucleated giant cells) and the presence of eosinophilic, intranuclear inclusion bodies (Cowdry Type A bodies) [6, 24, 37]. Syncytia are formed by the fusion of infected epithelial cells, a process mediated by viral glycoproteins (gB, gD, gH/gL), which allows the virus to spread from cell to cell while evading extracellular immune surveillance. The intranuclear inclusion bodies are the hallmark of herpesvirus replication, representing sites of viral DNA replication and nucleocapsid assembly, and are typically surrounded by a clear halo. These bodies are most readily observed in the nuclei of syncytial cells and adjacent epithelial cells in the early stages of infection. Their detection is highly suggestive of ILT, though their absence does not rule out the disease, especially in later stages when necrosis is extensive [6].

Inflammatory Cell Infiltration and Tracheal Remodeling

The mucosal damage triggers a profound inflammatory response. In the acute phase, there is a robust infiltration of heterophils and mononuclear cells, including macrophages and lymphocytes, into the lamina propria and the epithelium itself [55, 59]. The nature and magnitude of this cellular infiltration are key determinants of disease outcome. Transcriptomic analyses have revealed that severe ILTV infection leads to a significant upregulation of genes associated with both innate and adaptive immune responses, including interferons (IFNG), chemokines (CCL4, CCR5), and interleukins (IL2, IL6, IL17C) [40, 54, 55]. This is accompanied by a concurrent impairment of ciliary function and neuronal signaling, as well as potential damage to cartilaginous and extracellular matrix components within the trachea [40].

Detailed flow cytometry studies have shown that the tracheal infiltrate in non-vaccinated, challenged birds is dominated by CD4+ T cells, TCRγδ+ T cells, and MRC1LB+ (macrophage/dendritic cell) populations, while the epithelial integrity is heavily disrupted [59]. In contrast, protective vaccination (e.g., with chicken embryo origin [CEO] vaccines) results in swift viral clearance with minimal immune cell infiltration and preservation of the mucosal epithelium [57, 59]. The presence of regulatory T cells (Tregs) has been noted primarily in severely affected, non-vaccinated birds, likely as a homeostatic mechanism to control the extensive tissue damage [57]. This detailed cellular choreography explains why some birds succumb to the disease while others recover with residual tracheal scarring.

Strain-Dependent Virulence and Pathotype Variation

A critical concept in ILTV pathology is the significant variation in virulence among field isolates and between vaccine and wild-type strains. Studies comparing Australian field isolates have demonstrated that Class 9 and Class 10 strains are highly virulent, causing severe clinical signs and mortality, whereas Class 14 induces only subclinical infection [43, 44]. Similarly, in Canada, certain CEO vaccine revertant strains have been shown to possess higher virulence and transmission potential than some wild-type isolates [18, 42]. This variation is linked to specific genomic mutations and recombination events. For example, point mutations in the ICP4, gD, and TK genes of Egyptian isolates have been associated with altered virulence [7]. Furthermore, the discovery of a functional viral interleukin-4 (vIL-4) homolog in the ILTV genome represents a novel virulence factor, capable of modulating the host immune response by stimulating macrophage nitric oxide production, thereby potentially enhancing viral pathogenesis [3, 12]. The deletion of this vIL-4 gene was shown to reduce pathogenicity in vivo, confirming its role as a true virulence determinant [3]. This molecular diversity explains the heterogeneous clinical picture seen in the field and highlights the risk of using live attenuated vaccines, which can revert to virulence and cause outbreaks indistinguishable from those caused by wild-type viruses [4, 14, 17].

Systemic Dissemination, Tissue Tropism, and Virus Latency

While ILTV is primarily considered a pathogen of the upper respiratory tract and conjunctiva, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that the virus can disseminate systemically. Following ocular or intratracheal inoculation, viral DNA has been detected by quantitative PCR in a wide range of tissues, including the lung, kidney, spleen, liver, thymus, and caecal tonsils, with the highest loads found in the conjunctiva and trachea [29]. However, productive viral replication, as evidenced by antigen detection using immunohistochemistry, appears to be restricted to the respiratory and conjunctival epithelium, suggesting that detection of DNA in other organs may represent virus carried by infected leukocytes rather than active lytic replication [29]. Indeed, ILTV has been shown to have tropism for peripheral blood T and B lymphocytes (CD4+, CD8+, TCRγδ+, and Bu1+ cells) [23], and viral antigen has been detected in these cells, indicating that lymphocytes may serve as vehicles for systemic transport.

The most clinically elusive aspect of ILTV infection is its ability to establish latency, primarily in the trigeminal ganglia (TG) and, to a lesser extent, in the tracheal tissue [32, 36]. Latency is a hallmark of all alphaherpesviruses. Following the resolution of acute disease, the viral genome persists in a non-replicative state within sensory neurons. Reactivation can be triggered by stress, immunosuppression, or concurrent disease, leading to renewed viral shedding and the potential for new outbreaks [6, 32]. Both field strains and live attenuated vaccines are capable of establishing latency, with studies demonstrating that up to 57.5% of vaccinated birds harbor latent virus in their TG [36]. A nested PCR assay combined with in vitro co-cultivation techniques has proven effective for detecting latent virus, with reactivation often observed within 6 days of explant culture [32, 39]. This latency-reactivation cycle is the single most important factor in the perpetuation of ILTV within and between flocks, as recovered or vaccinated birds can become intermittent shedders for life, making eradication exceptionally difficult.

Coinfections and Their Synergistic Pathology

In commercial poultry production, ILTV seldom acts alone. The respiratory tract is a common portal of entry for numerous pathogens, and co-infections are the rule rather than the exception. ILTV is frequently found in combination with other viral and bacterial agents, creating a synergistic effect that exacerbates clinical disease and pathology. Common coinfections include infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), Newcastle disease virus (NDV), avian metapneumovirus (aMPV), and Mycoplasma gallisepticum [1, 4, 24, 48, 50]. The profound epithelial damage and suppression of mucociliary clearance caused by ILTV pave the way for secondary bacterial infections, most notably Escherichia coli and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, which can lead to severe airsacculitis, pericarditis, and perihepatitis, dramatically increasing mortality [1, 49]. In one documented outbreak in Iran, ILTV was found in a severe co-infection with NDV and Salmonella Enteritidis, leading to a particularly devastating clinical outcome [24]. The presence of these coinfections can mask the classic signs of ILT, making a definitive clinical diagnosis impossible and underscoring the necessity for multiplex molecular diagnostic tools, such as multiplex PCR, to identify all pathogens involved [49, 58]. From a pathological perspective, the lesions of co-infected birds are often a composite of the individual pathogens, with more extensive necrosis, fibrinopurulent exudation, and systemic involvement than seen with ILTV alone.

Diagnostic Approaches: From Traditional PCR to Point-of-Care LAMP Assays

The accurate and timely detection of infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV) is a cornerstone of effective disease management in poultry populations, directly influencing outbreak containment, vaccination strategy assessment, and the implementation of biosecurity measures. The diagnostic landscape for ILTV has evolved dramatically over the past three decades, transitioning from classical virological and histopathological methods through the molecular revolution of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based techniques, and now toward a new paradigm of rapid, field-deployable point-of-care (POC) assays that promise to democratize molecular diagnostics. This section provides a comprehensive and deeply analytical examination of the full spectrum of diagnostic approaches available for ILTV detection, from the foundational methods that remain in widespread use to the cutting-edge technologies that are reshaping the future of poultry disease surveillance.

Foundational Diagnostic Methods: Virus Isolation, Histopathology, and Serology

The historical gold standard for ILTV diagnosis has been virus isolation in embryonated chicken eggs (ECEs), coupled with the observation of characteristic cytopathic effects (CPE). The inoculation of suspected tracheal, laryngeal, or lung tissue homogenates onto the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) of 9- to 11-day-old specific-pathogen-free (SPF) embryonated chicken eggs typically yields visible white pock lesions within 3–7 days post-inoculation, which are pathognomonic for ILTV replication [8, 13, 21, 51]. This method, while definitive, is labor-intensive, requires specialized laboratory infrastructure and live embryonated eggs, and can take up to a week to produce results, rendering it unsuitable for rapid outbreak response [1, 9]. Despite these limitations, virus isolation remains invaluable for generating viral stocks for characterization, vaccine development, and fundamental research into viral pathogenesis [13, 24, 41]. Kamal et al. [13] successfully isolated two ILTV field strains from Bangladeshi layer flocks using CAM inoculation, subsequently confirming them via nucleotide sequencing, agar gel immunodiffusion tests (AGIDT), and virus neutralization tests (VNT), demonstrating the continued utility of classical isolation in contemporary epidemiological investigations.

Histopathological examination of tracheal and conjunctival tissues provides a complementary diagnostic approach, with the hallmark microscopic lesions including epithelial cell necrosis, sloughing of the tracheal mucosa, syncytial cell formation, and the presence of eosinophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies (Cowdry type A inclusions) within infected epithelial cells [6, 24, 37]. These histopathological changes are highly suggestive of ILTV infection, but they are not entirely specific, as other respiratory pathogens, particularly certain strains of infectious bronchitis virus and Newcastle disease virus, can induce similar tissue damage [1, 9]. Serological assays, most notably enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), have been widely employed to detect anti-ILTV antibodies in serum samples, providing evidence of past or current infection at the flock level [6, 8, 10, 47]. The indirect ELISA format, using purified viral antigens or recombinant proteins, has demonstrated utility in large-scale seroepidemiological surveys, such as those conducted in Ethiopia (19.4% seroprevalence) and Santa Catarina, Brazil (95.4% farm-level seropositivity) [6, 8, 47]. However, serology cannot differentiate between vaccinated and naturally infected birds, and the window period between infection and seroconversion delays detection, limiting its application in acute outbreak settings. Withoeft et al. [6] emphasized that while serological screening provides important epidemiological data, confirmation of active viral shedding requires molecular detection methods, underscoring the complementary roles of these foundational techniques.

Conventional PCR and End-Point Molecular Detection

The advent of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) revolutionized ILTV diagnostics by offering rapid, sensitive, and specific detection of viral nucleic acids directly from clinical specimens, circumventing the need for time-consuming virus isolation. Conventional gel-based PCR assays targeting highly conserved genomic regions, most commonly the infected cell protein 4 (ICP4) gene, the thymidine kinase (TK) gene, and the glycoprotein B (gB), glycoprotein G (gG), and glycoprotein D (gD) genes, have become standard diagnostic tools in veterinary laboratories worldwide [8, 48, 56, 64, 66]. These assays typically amplify fragments ranging from 400 to 900 base pairs, which are visualized by agarose gel electrophoresis, and the amplicons can be subjected to sequencing or restriction enzyme digestion for further characterization.

The ICP4 gene has emerged as a particularly favored target for both detection and genotyping due to its sequence variability among ILTV strains. Adam et al. [8] successfully amplified a 688-bp fragment of the ICP4 gene from oropharyngeal swabs collected in Ethiopia, confirming the first molecular evidence of ILTV circulation in the Amhara region. Similarly, Müştak and Müştak [48] employed quantitative PCR (qPCR) targeting ICP4 fragments to confirm ILTV in 8 of 21 Turkish broiler flocks, identifying co-infections with infectious bronchitis virus in a substantial proportion of positive cases. The TK gene has also been widely utilized; Ali et al. [56] used TK-specific primers to achieve a 98.27% nucleotide identity with reference strains, confirming the circulation of ILTV in Iraqi broiler flocks with a prevalence of 2.2%.

A significant refinement of conventional PCR is the application of restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis to PCR amplicons (PCR-RFLP), which enables the differentiation of field and vaccine strains without the need for complete sequencing. This approach relies on the detection of specific restriction sites that differ between vaccine and wild-type genomes, typically within the TK gene or the ICP4 gene. Al-Rawi [61] provided the first report of PCR-RFLP for ILTV strain differentiation in Iraq, using HaeIII restriction digestion of TK gene amplicons to discriminate field isolates (which produced digestion fragments of 500 and 400 base pairs) from vaccine strains (which remained undigested at 1024 base pairs). Can-Sahna [66] applied PCR-RFLP to Turkish ILTV isolates, analyzing ICP4, gG, gE, and TK gene regions, and classified the circulating strains as low-virulence field variants. Hermann et al. [14] systematically compared PCR-RFLP with multi-gene sequencing in a comprehensive analysis of ILTV from 21 natural outbreaks in Switzerland, where vaccination is de facto prohibited. Remarkably, 14 of 21 samples exhibited RFLP patterns indistinguishable from chicken embryo origin (CEO) vaccine strains, while four distinct non-vaccine-like groups were identified, with the RFLP results showing strong concordance with sequencing-based phylogeny. This study powerfully illustrated that PCR-RFLP remains a cost-effective and reliable tool for preliminary genotyping, particularly in regions where sequencing capacity is limited, but it also revealed the method's limitations in resolving complex recombinant genomes.

Nested PCR, which involves two successive amplification reactions using internal primers, has been employed to enhance sensitivity for detecting latent ILTV infections, where viral DNA loads are exceedingly low. Thilakarathne et al. [39] developed a nested PCR assay for the detection of latent ILTV in trigeminal ganglia (TG) and tracheal tissues, demonstrating superior sensitivity compared to other molecular approaches, particularly when combined with in vitro reactivation culture methods. This methodological refinement has been critical for understanding latency characteristics, a key aspect of ILTV pathogenesis, as latent virus is often present at copy numbers below the detection threshold of standard single-round PCR assays [32, 36, 39]. The same research group subsequently applied this nested PCR approach to demonstrate that commercial ILTV vaccines (SA2, A20, Serva) and a glycoprotein G deletion mutant (ΔgG-ILTV) all establish latency in the trigeminal ganglia of SPF chickens, with 57.5% of vaccinated birds harboring ILTV DNA in the TG at 20–21 days post-vaccination [36]. The detection of latent virus in birds with no evidence of active lytic replication in the upper respiratory tract underscores the critical role of sensitive molecular tools in unraveling the epidemiology of ILTV persistence and reactivation.

Quantitative Real-Time PCR (qPCR): The Contemporary Gold Standard

Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) has superseded conventional PCR as the gold standard for ILTV detection and quantification in most diagnostic laboratories, offering the combined advantages of high sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility, and the ability to determine viral genome copy numbers without post-amplification processing [6, 11, 20, 52, 62]. The incorporation of fluorescent reporter molecules, either DNA-binding dyes such as SYBR Green or sequence-specific probes such as TaqMan, enables real-time monitoring of amplification, reducing turnaround times from hours to minutes and minimizing the risk of carryover contamination inherent in nested PCR approaches.

Mo et al. [62] developed and validated a suite of qPCR assays for the concurrent diagnosis of ILTV, Newcastle disease virus (NDV), and avian metapneumovirus (aMPV) subtypes A and B, using synchronized thermocycling conditions. All assays demonstrated linearity over a 5-log10 dynamic range, a reproducible limit of detection (LOD) of ≥10 target copies, and amplification efficiencies between 86.8% and 98.2%, with 100% specificity for NDV and ILTV when tested against biological specimens. This harmonized approach streamlines diagnostic workflows in laboratories that must process multiple suspect respiratory pathogens simultaneously, a particularly valuable capability given the high frequency of co-infections in field settings [48, 50].

The application of qPCR to non-invasive sample matrices, particularly poultry dust, represents a transformative innovation in ILTV surveillance. Assen et al. [20] pioneered the use of qPCR detection of ILTV in settled chicken house dust as a population-level sampling tool for assessing vaccination outcomes and outbreak control. In a landmark field study, dust samples were collected from 26 meat chicken flocks at 0, 4, 7, 14, and 21 days post-drinking water vaccination. Unexpectedly, ILTV DNA was detected in dust samples collected prior to vaccination in 22 of 26 flocks, revealing that active ILTV infection was present before vaccine administration, a phenomenon that would have remained undetected using conventional individual bird sampling. The ensuing statewide control program in South Australia, guided by dust qPCR monitoring, successfully eradicated ILT from the region, as confirmed by negative dust test results from 50 flocks and the complete absence of clinical disease. Nguyen et al. [35] further refined dust sampling protocols, demonstrating that settle plates provide a reliable index of current vaccine virus circulation, while surface scraping yields a cumulative record of viral shedding over time. These studies collectively establish that dust qPCR is a low-cost, population-level screening tool of unparalleled utility for outbreak surveillance, vaccine verification, and regional eradication programs.

Quantitative PCR has also been instrumental in elucidating tissue tropism and viral dissemination. Tran et al. [29] used qPCR to detect ILTV DNA in an extensive panel of tissues from experimentally infected chickens at 7 days post-inoculation, with the highest genomic copies (GC) detected in conjunctiva (8.08 log10 GC/mg), followed by trachea (4.64 log10 GC/mg), thymus (4.52 log10 GC/mg), kidney (3.97 log10 GC/mg), lung (3.65 log10 GC/mg), spleen (3.55 log10 GC/mg), and liver (3.51 log10 GC/mg). Viral antigen was only detected by immunohistochemistry in conjunctiva, trachea, and lung, suggesting that the presence of genomic DNA in other tissues may reflect virus in transit or within infiltrating leukocytes rather than active replication. The detection of ILTV DNA in blood fractions, including plasma and buffy coat cells, at 14 dpi further underscores the systemic dissemination of the virus, with implications for diagnostic sampling strategies and the understanding of latency reactivation [23, 29].

The genotyping and differentiation of ILTV strains using qPCR-based approaches has been advanced through high-resolution melting (HRM) curve analysis. HRM analysis exploits the differential melting temperatures of amplicons based on their nucleotide sequence composition, providing a rapid, closed-tube method for detecting single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) without the need for sequencing or restriction enzyme digestion. Rojas et al. [65] developed an HRM protocol targeting the US5 gene of ILTV, which successfully differentiated five defined haplotypes based on specific variations at positions 461, 484, 832, 878, and 894. The assay demonstrated 97.49% concordance with Sanger sequencing, validating its utility as a reliable and faster alternative for strain typing. However, the approach has inherent limitations: samples with high cycle threshold (Ct) values (Ct ≅ 32.5) produced heterogeneous melting curves, reducing resolution at low viral loads, and the technique requires careful optimization of salt concentrations and DNA purity to avoid artifactual curve shifts.

Multiplex PCR and Multi-Pathogen Detection Systems

Given that respiratory disease outbreaks in poultry frequently involve mixed infections with multiple viral and bacterial agents, multiplex PCR assays that can simultaneously detect ILTV alongside other common respiratory pathogens provide substantial diagnostic and economic advantages. Nguyen et al. [49] established a duplex PCR method for the co-detection of ILTV and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale (ORT), an emerging bacterial respiratory pathogen. The assay, optimized at an annealing temperature of 65°C with 2.5 pmol/µL of each primer set, demonstrated specificity against six non-target agents and an LOD of 10³ copies/µL for both pathogens. Screening of 304 field samples revealed 23 dual-positive, 88 ILTV-only positive, and 44 ORT-only positive samples, underscoring the clinical relevance of this co-infection.

Song et al. [58] developed a more comprehensive multiplex PCR assay capable of simultaneously detecting ILTV, fowlpox virus (FWPV), and reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV), including the detection of REV-integrated FWPV. This assay is particularly valuable given that the diphtheritic form of fowlpox can be clinically indistinguishable from ILT, and that the integration of REV sequences into the FWPV genome has become increasingly prevalent in field isolates. The multiplex assay achieved a detection limit of 1 × 10¹ copies/µL and showed 100% concordance with singleplex PCR and sequencing when applied to clinical samples. The ability to concurrently differentiate these pathogens in a single reaction reduces diagnostic turnaround time, conserves valuable clinical material, and provides a more complete picture of the etiological agents contributing to respiratory disease complexes.

The expansion of multiplex capacity, however, must be balanced against potential reductions in sensitivity and specificity arising from primer competition and the need to balance annealing conditions across multiple primer pairs. Careful primer design and optimization of reaction components are essential to ensure equitable amplification of all targets, and the detection limits of multiplex assays are often 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than those of their singleplex counterparts, as demonstrated by Nguyen et al. [49]. Nevertheless, the practical advantages of multiplexing for syndromic surveillance in poultry populations with complex respiratory disease presentations are compelling, particularly in resource-constrained diagnostic settings.

Sequencing-Based Genotyping and Phylogenetic Analysis

The molecular characterization of ILTV strains has been revolutionized by the application of Sanger sequencing and, more recently, next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, which provide the high-resolution genetic data necessary for phylogenetic analysis, recombination detection, and the identification of genetic markers associated with virulence and vaccine derivation. Partial gene sequencing of multiple genomic regions, most commonly ICP4, gB, gG, gD, and TK, has become the standard approach for genotyping circulating strains and inferring their evolutionary relationships [4, 5, 7, 14, 15, 25, 38, 64]. These analyses have revealed a complex landscape of ILTV diversity, characterized by the coexistence of vaccine-derived strains, wild-type viruses, and recombinant variants with distinct pathogenic properties.

Chacón et al. [4] employed sequencing of ICP4 gene fragments to investigate a series of severe ILT outbreaks in Brazilian broiler, layer, and broiler breeder flocks. Phylogenetic analysis classified all outbreak strains as genotype VI and indicated a single non-vaccine-origin virus circulating across multiple companies within a high-density poultry region. The authors were able to infer a potential route of transmission based on the genetic identity of the isolates, demonstrating the utility of molecular epidemiology for tracing outbreak origins. Similarly, Aydin et al. [5] sequenced partial gB, gG, and ICP4 genes from Turkish poultry flocks, identifying a unique 18-bp insertion (GCGGTTCTTGCGGTTGTT) in the ICP4 gene of Turkish strains and documenting two non-synonymous substitutions in gB (I2T and K163R). Phylogenetic analysis of gG sequences revealed close clustering with strains from Russia, China, Canada, the USA, and Italy, illustrating the international connectivity of ILTV genetic diversity.

The identification of vaccine-like strains as the causative agents of field outbreaks has been a recurring theme in molecular epidemiological studies worldwide. Yehia et al. [7] analyzed ILTV strains circulating in Egypt during 2023 and found that 3 of 10 sequenced samples clustered within the CEO vaccine group (98.9%–100% amino acid identity), while the remaining 7 clustered with TCO vaccine strains (100% amino acid identity). Critically, the authors identified novel mutations in the ICP4 gene (Q161H, Q182H), gD gene (A34G, P276L), and TK gene (R115I, G126A, S163I, A99E) in certain isolates, which may affect virulence and pathogenicity. These findings strongly suggest that the outbreaks were induced by vaccine strains that had reverted to virulence through bird-to-bird transmission or recombination, a phenomenon now recognized as a major driver of ILTV field outbreaks globally [15, 17, 25, 38, 51, 63].

Zhang et al. [15] conducted a comprehensive genomic characterization of seven Chinese ILTV strains isolated between 2015 and 2019 using high-throughput sequencing. Six isolates (SD2015, GD2017, SYB2018, HB201812, HB201806, and TJ2019) clustered with CEO vaccine strains, while only one (LN2018) belonged to the wild-type cluster. Recombination analysis provided compelling evidence of probable recombination events in SD2015, HB201806, and LN2018, and in vivo pathogenicity studies revealed that HB201806 induced more severe conjunctivitis, tracheal damage, and higher viral loads than TJ2019 or LN2018. These data demonstrate that recombination between vaccine and field strains can generate variants with enhanced virulence, posing a significant challenge for ILTV control through vaccination alone.

The application of third-generation sequencing technologies, such as Oxford Nanopore MinION, has opened new frontiers for rapid, real

Immune Evasion Strategies Encoded by the ILTV Genome

The infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV), formally designated Gallid alphaherpesvirus 1, is a masterful immunomodulator. As a large DNA virus belonging to the Alphaherpesvirinae subfamily, ILTV has co-evolved with its avian hosts for millennia, during which it has acquired a sophisticated arsenal of gene products dedicated to subverting, manipulating, and evading the host immune response. This capability is paramount for the virus’s lifecycle, enabling acute lytic replication in the upper respiratory tract, the establishment of lifelong latency within the trigeminal ganglia, and subsequent reactivation, all in the face of a robust host immune system. The ILTV genome, approximately 151 kb in size, encodes over 80 open reading frames (ORFs), and while many functions remain uncharacterized, a growing body of evidence has begun to illuminate the specific molecular mechanisms of immune evasion. These strategies can be broadly categorized into: (1) the deployment of viral cytokine homologs (virokines) that directly manipulate the host cytokine network, (2) the modulation of cell-surface glycoproteins to interfere with cellular immunity and viral spread, (3) the establishment of a molecular “stealth mode” via latency, and (4) the exploitation of genomic plasticity through recombination to generate novel evasive phenotypes. Understanding these mechanisms is not merely an academic exercise; it is fundamental to rational vaccine design, the development of antiviral therapeutics, and the global control of this economically devastating pathogen, which, as recognized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), continues to threaten poultry production systems worldwide.

The Viral Interleukin-4 (vIL-4): A Paradigm of Molecular Mimicry

The most striking and recently elucidated immune evasion strategy encoded by the ILTV genome is the capture and expression of a functional viral interleukin-4 (vIL-4) [3, 12]. This discovery represents the first report of a viral IL-4 homolog in any herpesvirus and fundamentally alters our understanding of ILTV pathogenesis. The vIL-4 gene is a highly-spliced, three-intron gene whose structure is precisely conserved with chicken and other vertebrate IL-4 homologs, providing compelling evidence of direct genomic capture from a Galliformes host [3]. Computational modeling has demonstrated that the 147-amino acid protein product maintains significant conservation at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels, allowing it to engage with the host IL-4 receptor complex [3].

The functional significance of this piracy is profound. Interleukin-4 is a canonical type 2 cytokine that orchestrates humoral immunity, promotes B cell class switching to IgG and IgE, and suppresses type 1 immune responses characterized by macrophage activation and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) activity. In the context of ILTV infection, the virus utilizes vIL-4 to tip the immunological balance away from a protective cell-mediated response. The work by Volkening et al. (2025) demonstrated that the expressed vIL-4 homolog is not merely a genetic relic; it is fully functional. An LPS-stimulation assay revealed that vIL-4 stimulated nitric oxide production in a macrophage cell line at levels comparable to recombinant chicken IL-4, confirming its biological activity [3]. More critically, a recombinant virus lacking vIL-4 (vIL-4 knockout) exhibited significantly reduced pathogenicity in vivo compared to the wild-type virus, unequivocally establishing vIL-4 as a novel virulence factor [3].

Mechanistically, the expression of vIL-4 during infection likely serves multiple immunosuppressive functions. By skewing the immune response toward a Th2-dominant phenotype, the virus can effectively downregulate the interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and CTL responses that are essential for clearing a herpesvirus infection. This is consistent with observations that protective immunity against ILTV is heavily dependent on cell-mediated immunity, particularly activated CD8+ cytotoxic T cells [57, 59]. The presence of vIL-4 may also inhibit the antiviral activity of macrophages and natural killer (NK) cells, creating a more permissive environment for viral replication in the tracheal epithelium. Furthermore, the modulation of the cytokine milieu by vIL-4 likely facilitates the establishment of latency by dampening the inflammatory signals that would otherwise trigger the reactivation of latent virus. This sophisticated strategy of encoding a functional cytokine mimic allows ILTV to directly rewrite the host's immunological script for its own replication and persistence.

Subversion of Cellular Immunity via Glycoprotein Modulation

Beyond soluble cytokine mimics, ILTV employs a suite of membrane-associated glycoproteins to directly interfere with host immune cell function and cell-to-cell spread. The glycoprotein E (gE) and glycoprotein I (gI) heterodimer is a classic immune evasion tool among alphaherpesviruses, and ILTV is no exception. In many herpesviruses, the gE/gI complex functions as an Fc receptor, binding the Fc portion of host antibodies. This “antibody bipolar bridging” prevents antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) and complement-mediated neutralization, allowing the virus to evade humoral immunity even in the face of a robust antibody response. While the specific Fc-receptor activity of ILTV gE/gI remains to be fully characterized, the essential nature of these genes has been confirmed. Deletion of either gE or gI from ILTV genomes (including the Australian field strain CSW-1 and vaccine strain A20) renders the virus unable to propagate separately from wild-type virus in cell culture, underscoring their critical role in cell-to-cell spread [19]. This defect in cell-to-cell dissemination is a profound immune evasion mechanism: by moving directly from an infected cell to an adjacent uninfected cell through intercellular junctions, the virus can avoid exposure to the extracellular milieu, thereby evading neutralizing antibodies and complement.

The tropism of ILTV for immune cells themselves represents another layer of evasion. Immunofluorescent staining studies have revealed that ILTV glycoprotein E (gE)-specific fluorescence is localized within peripheral blood lymphocytes, specifically within CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, TCRγδ and TCRαβ T cells, and B cells, but not in monocytes or erythrocytes [23]. This selective tropism suggests that ILTV can infect and potentially replicate within the very cells responsible for orchestrating the adaptive immune response. By hijacking lymphocytes, the virus may use them as vehicles for dissemination to distant sites, including the trigeminal ganglia for latency establishment. Furthermore, infection of these cells could lead to direct impairment of their effector functions, such as cytokine production or cytolytic activity, effectively crippling the adaptive immune response from within. The presence of ILTV DNA in the buffy coat and plasma fractions of infected chickens further supports this notion of a systemic, cell-associated phase of infection [29].

Glycoprotein G (gG) also plays a significant role in immune subversion. The successful use of a glycoprotein-G-deleted live-attenuated vaccine (ΔgG-ILTV) provides compelling evidence for the immunomodulatory function of this protein [40]. Transcriptomic analysis of chickens vaccinated with ΔgG-ILTV revealed a preserved tracheal mucosal integrity and a controlled, non-pathological immune response upon challenge, in stark contrast to the severe inflammatory dysregulation seen in non-vaccinated, challenged birds [40]. While the precise molecular function of ILTV gG is still under investigation, in other herpesviruses, gG functions as a chemokine-binding protein (vCKBP), sequestering host chemokines and preventing the recruitment of inflammatory cells to the site of infection. The deletion of gG likely removes this chemokine sink, allowing for a more robust and effective antiviral immune response to develop. This highlights the delicate balance the virus must strike: sufficient inflammation for replication, but not so much as to be cleared.

Latency: The Ultimate Immune Sanctuary

Perhaps the most fundamental immune evasion strategy shared by all alphaherpesviruses is the ability to establish latency. For ILTV, latency is a dynamic and persistent state where the viral genome is maintained as an episome within the nuclei of infected neurons in the trigeminal ganglia (TG), and likely also in non-neuronal cells of the trachea [32, 36]. During latency, viral gene expression is dramatically restricted, with only latency-associated transcripts (LATs) being produced. This near-complete transcriptional silence renders the latently infected cell invisible to the host immune system. No viral proteins are presented on MHC class I molecules, no viral antigens stimulate B or T cells, and the host has no molecular target to recognize or eliminate the infected cell.

The capacity for latency is a hallmark of all ILTV strains, including both virulent field strains and live attenuated vaccine strains. Studies have demonstrated that latent ILTV infection is detected in a large proportion of chickens following inoculation, irrespective of whether a field (class 9) or vaccine (SA2, A20, Serva) strain is used [32, 36]. For instance, ILTV DNA was detected in the trigeminal ganglia of 57.5% of vaccinated SPF chickens at 20-21 days post-vaccination, with the SA2 vaccine strain establishing latency in 100% of inoculated birds [36]. This finding has profound implications for ILT control. It confirms that live vaccines, while protective, perpetuate the cycle of latency and reactivation within commercial flocks. Stressors such as high stocking density, transportation, or the onset of lay can trigger reactivation, leading to viral shedding and transmission to naïve birds even in the absence of clinical disease [39]. The inability to reactivate latent virus from TG co-cultures in some studies highlights the tight control over this process, but the detection of viral DNA in the absence of lytic replication confirms a true latent state [32, 39]. This latent reservoir serves as a perpetual source of virus within a farm or region, rendering eradication efforts exceptionally challenging and emphasizing the need for biosecurity measures far beyond vaccination.

Genomic Plasticity and Recombination: Evolving the Evasion Arsenal

A final and increasingly critical dimension of ILTV immune evasion is its capacity for genomic recombination. ILTV is not a static entity; the co-circulation of multiple vaccine strains (CEO, TCO) and wild-type viruses within a single host provides a breeding ground for the emergence of novel recombinant strains [25, 31, 38]. Superinfection of individual chickens with genetically distinct ILTV strains has been experimentally demonstrated, and subsequent recombination events in the natural host generate progeny viruses with novel combinations of genes [31]. This process is a powerful evolutionary force that can rapidly generate viruses with enhanced virulence, altered tissue tropism, or improved evasion capabilities.

The emergence of recombinant strains has been documented globally. In Australia, recombinant classes 9 and 10 have become the dominant circulating strains, exhibiting high virulence in both meat and layer chickens [43, 44]. Similarly, in Canada and the United States, recombination between CEO vaccine strains has produced virulent “CEO revertant” viruses that are responsible for the majority of recent outbreaks [17, 25]. These recombinants often carry a mixture of alleles from different parental strains, potentially acquiring enhanced replication capacity or virulence factors. For example, the Canadian wild-type isolates showed 15 unique mutational sites leading to amino acid changes in 13 ORFs compared to all CEO vaccine strains, indicating ongoing selection for variants that can escape vaccine-induced immunity [17]. This genomic plasticity poses a direct challenge to control strategies. A vaccine designed to protect against one genotype may be less effective against a newly emerged recombinant, necessitating continuous surveillance and vaccine updates. The documented ability for vaccine strains themselves to revert to virulence through back-passage in birds and recombination underscores that these live vaccines are themselves a double-edged sword in the battle against ILTV [4, 7, 18, 42].

Control Measures and Biosecurity Strategies for Infectious Laryngotracheitis

The control of Infectious Laryngotracheitis (ILT) necessitates a multi-faceted, integrated strategy that combines rigorous biosecurity protocols, strategic vaccination programs, and rapid, accurate diagnostic surveillance. The highly contagious nature of ILTV, its ability to establish lifelong latency in recovered birds, and the documented propensity for live attenuated vaccine strains to revert to virulence or recombine with field strains render a singular approach insufficient. Effective management must therefore be viewed as a dynamic, continuously adaptive process that addresses the virus’s biology, its epidemiological behavior within different production systems, and the inherent risks associated with the control tools themselves.

### Foundational Biosecurity: The First Line of Defense

Biosecurity remains the cornerstone of any effective ILT control program, serving as the primary barrier to virus introduction and spread. The virus is predominantly transmitted horizontally via the respiratory route, through direct bird-to-bird contact, or indirectly via contaminated fomites, personnel, equipment, and airborne dust particles [22, 26]. The stability of ILTV DNA in poultry dust for extended periods, up to four months under dry conditions, underscores the persistent environmental risk and the critical need for stringent cleaning and disinfection protocols [27]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes ILT as a significant transboundary disease, and its control principles align with general compartmentalization and biosecurity standards for high-consequence poultry pathogens.

Physical and Operational Barriers: The implementation of strict "all-in/all-out" production systems is paramount. This practice allows for complete depopulation, thorough cleaning, disinfection, and a downtime period sufficient to break the cycle of infection. Studies have identified the introduction of new animals from other farms as a significant risk factor for ILTV introduction, particularly in backyard and commercial systems alike [47, 53]. Consequently, strict quarantine protocols for any incoming birds, coupled with sourcing from known ILTV-free flocks, are non-negotiable. The segregation of different age groups on a farm is also critical, as older birds can serve as asymptomatic shedders, transmitting the virus to susceptible younger cohorts [6]. The use of dedicated footwear, clothing, and equipment for each house, along with footbaths and hand-washing stations at entry points, forms a basic but essential barrier.

Environmental Control and Dust Management: Given that airborne transmission is a highly efficient route for ILTV spread, particularly for virulent field strains, environmental controls are of utmost importance [26]. Poultry house dust is a potent vehicle for the virus. Monitoring ILTV in settled dust via qPCR has proven to be a powerful, population-level surveillance tool, capable of detecting infection before clinical signs appear and assessing the success of mass vaccination campaigns [20, 35]. This approach was instrumental in a statewide eradication program in South Australia, where dust testing guided decision-making and ultimately confirmed the absence of infection [20]. Therefore, biosecurity measures must include strategies to minimize dust generation (e.g., proper ventilation, litter management) and to contain and decontaminate dust. While the infectivity of dust is debated, with some studies showing it can harbor infectious virus and others failing to demonstrate transmission via dust extracts, the presence of high levels of viral DNA makes it a reliable proxy for active infection and a potential fomite [22, 26, 27]. Disinfectants effective against enveloped herpesviruses, such as those containing quaternary ammonium compounds, phenols, or accelerated hydrogen peroxide, should be used on all surfaces, including ventilation systems.

Management of Latent Carriers: The ability of ILTV to establish latency in the trigeminal ganglia and trachea of recovered birds is arguably the greatest challenge to eradication [32, 36]. Both field and vaccine strains can become latent, and reactivation can be triggered by stress factors such as the onset of lay, co-infections, or poor management conditions [32, 36]. This creates a perpetual reservoir of virus within a flock. Consequently, a robust biosecurity plan must include strategies to minimize stress, manage multi-age sites with extreme care, and consider the depopulation of seropositive flocks as a long-term goal for regional control. The detection of latent carriers is difficult, but the development of sensitive nested PCR assays combined with in vitro reactivation culture methods provides a means to identify these birds, which is crucial for epidemiological investigations and for certifying flocks as ILTV-free [39].

### Strategic Vaccination: A Double-Edged Sword

Vaccination is the most widely used tool for controlling clinical ILT, but its application is fraught with complexities. The central paradox is that the most effective vaccines, live attenuated strains, carry inherent risks, including residual virulence, the ability to establish latency, and the potential to revert to a virulent state or recombine with other strains to generate novel, more pathogenic viruses [15, 25, 31, 41]. Therefore, vaccination must be viewed not as a standalone solution but as a carefully managed component of an integrated control program.

Types of Vaccines and Their Applications:

1. Live Attenuated Vaccines: These are derived from either chicken embryo origin (CEO) or tissue culture origin (TCO). CEO vaccines are typically more immunogenic and are often administered via drinking water or eye drop, providing robust protection, particularly in long-lived birds like layers and breeders [57, 59]. However, they are also more virulent and have been strongly implicated in field outbreaks due to reversion to virulence and recombination [15, 17, 25, 42]. TCO vaccines are considered safer but less immunogenic, often requiring administration via eye drop for optimal efficacy [57, 63]. The choice between CEO and TCO involves a risk-benefit analysis, with many experts recommending TCO or recombinant vaccines for initial priming, followed by CEO only if necessary and under strict management.

2. Recombinant Vectored Vaccines: To circumvent the safety issues of live attenuated vaccines, recombinant vectors, most notably herpesvirus of turkeys (HVT) and fowl poxvirus (FPV), have been developed to express key ILTV immunogens like glycoproteins B and D [67, 69, 79]. These vaccines are non-pathogenic, cannot revert to virulence, and do not establish latency in the host. They are safe for in ovo or day-old administration, providing early priming of the immune system without causing disease [69, 73, 80]. However, their protection is often less robust than that of live attenuated vaccines, and they may not prevent infection or shedding entirely, particularly against heterologous challenge strains [72, 80]. For example, a study evaluating an rHVT-LT vaccine against a genotype VI Canadian wild-type ILTV found it failed to decrease clinical signs at 6 days post-infection, though it did reduce oropharyngeal shedding [72].

3. Inactivated and Subunit Vaccines: Inactivated (killed) vaccines are safe but generally induce a weaker, predominantly humoral immune response, which is insufficient to protect against the respiratory challenge posed by ILTV [78, 79]. They are sometimes used in combination with live vaccines to boost immunity in long-lived birds [79]. Subunit and DNA vaccines are under development, with promising results in experimental settings. For instance, a DNA vaccine encoding glycoprotein B was shown to elicit potent antibody and IFN-γ responses and, notably, prevented virus shedding after challenge, a feature not observed with the live vaccine comparator [70]. Multi-epitope peptide vaccines designed using immunoinformatic approaches also represent a future direction, offering the potential for safe, targeted immunity [33, 67].

Vaccination Strategies and the Problem of Recombination:

The most effective vaccination strategies for long-lived birds often involve a "prime-boost" approach, using a recombinant vaccine (e.g., rHVT-LT) at day 1 or in ovo, followed by a live attenuated vaccine (e.g., TCO or CEO) later in life [69, 79]. This combination can provide superior protection compared to either vaccine alone, as demonstrated by reduced clinical signs, lower challenge virus replication, and even prevention of transmission to contact birds [69].

However, the widespread use of multiple live attenuated vaccines within a flock creates conditions ripe for superinfection and recombination. A landmark study demonstrated that superinfection of chickens with two genetically distinct ILTV vaccines is possible, even when the interval between administrations is up to four days, and that this leads to the generation of recombinant progeny [31]. This finding has profound implications for vaccine management. The use of only one type of live vaccine per flock is the single most effective way to limit the emergence of novel, potentially more virulent recombinant strains [31]. The emergence of dominant recombinant strains, such as class 9 and class 10 in Australia, which have replaced their parental vaccine strains in the field, serves as a stark warning [28, 44]. These recombinants can exhibit enhanced virulence and transmission, undermining the very purpose of vaccination [42, 44].

### Integrated Surveillance and Rapid Diagnostics

The success of any control program hinges on the ability to detect the virus rapidly and accurately. Traditional methods like virus isolation are time-consuming and not suited for real-time decision-making. Modern molecular diagnostics have revolutionized ILT control.

Point-of-Care and Field-Deployable Tests: The development of rapid, user-friendly tests that can be deployed directly on farms is a game-changer for biosecurity. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays, particularly when combined with visual readout systems like gold nanoparticle-based DNA nanoprobes, allow for the detection of ILTV from respiratory swabs in under 45 minutes with sensitivity and specificity comparable to qPCR [2, 68]. These tests require minimal equipment and training, enabling farm personnel to make immediate decisions about quarantining affected houses or delaying movement of birds. Similarly, recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) and recombinase-aided amplification (RAA) assays offer rapid (15-30 minutes), isothermal detection with high sensitivity, making them ideal for field use [74, 76, 77]. Immunochromatographic strip tests (e.g., colloidal gold test strips) provide another simple, rapid, and cost-effective option for on-site screening [75].

Population-Level Monitoring: Dust monitoring using qPCR has emerged as a powerful, non-invasive tool for population-level surveillance [20, 35]. By testing dust samples collected from settle plates or by scraping surfaces, it is possible to detect ILTV circulation within a flock days or even weeks before clinical signs appear. This allows for proactive intervention, such as adjusting ventilation, enhancing biosecurity, or evaluating the success of a recent vaccination [20]. The technique was critical in the successful eradication of ILT from South Australia, where negative dust results from 50 flocks confirmed the absence of the virus [20].

Molecular Characterization and Genotyping: Beyond mere detection, characterizing the circulating virus is essential for informed decision-making. PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and high-resolution melt (HRM) curve analysis can differentiate between vaccine and field strains [61, 65]. More advanced techniques like whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and MinION-based amplicon sequencing provide detailed phylogenetic and recombination analyses, revealing the origin of an outbreak (e.g., vaccine revertant vs. wild-type), tracking transmission routes, and identifying emerging recombinant strains [4, 34, 71]. This information is invaluable for adapting vaccination strategies and for epidemiological tracing during an outbreak. For instance, molecular characterization of ILTV in Egypt in 2023 revealed that outbreaks were caused by both TCO and CEO vaccine-like strains, prompting a call for reassessment of vaccination regimens [7]. Similarly, studies in Canada and Brazil have used phylogenetic analysis to trace the origin and spread of outbreak strains, highlighting the role of CEO vaccine revertants [4, 17].

References

[1] Mo J, Mo J. Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus and Avian Metapneumovirus: A Comprehensive Review. Pathogens. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14010055

[2] Cea-Callejo P, Trenado C, Mansouri EE, Gomez-Lucia E, Doménech A, Biarnés M, et al.. Point-of-Care Diagnostic Test for Rapid Detection of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus by Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and Nanoprobes. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26051971

[3] Volkening J, Spatz S, García M, Ross TA, Maekawa DA, Rosenthal KS, et al.. A functional interleukin-4 homolog is encoded in the genome of infectious laryngotracheitis virus: Unveiling a novel virulence factor. bioRxiv. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1013219

[4] Chacón JL, Chacón RD, Hagemann HL, Astolfi-Ferreira C, Nunes C, Sesti L, et al.. Molecular Characterization of the Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus (ILTV) Involved in Poultry Outbreaks Reveals the Virus Origin and Estimated Spreading Route. Viruses. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v17020213

[5] Aydin O, Bayraktar E, Tali H, Ozkan I, Yılmaz A, Umar S, et al.. Phylogeny of multiple genomic regions of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in Turkish poultry flocks. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.104957

[6] Withoeft J, Molin SRD, Marian L, Caron L, Pissetti C, Kuchiishi SS, et al.. Two-year surveillance of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in layer farms from Southern Brazil: a seroepidemiological, molecular, and pathological approach. Poultry Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.105382

[7] Yehia N, Omar SE, Mady W, Mossad Z, Said D. Molecular Characterization of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus Circulating in Egypt during 2023. The Journal of World's Poultry Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36380/jwpr.2025.23

[8] Adam O, Oladele O, Yimam TM, Getachew B, Deresse G, Birhanu K, et al.. Serological and molecular detection of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in chickens in Central Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1517373

[9] Mo J. Comprehensive review of diagnostic concepts of major respiratory viruses (avian influenza virus, infectious bronchitis virus, Newcastle disease virus, infectious laryngotracheitis virus, and avian metapneumoviruses) in poultry. Korean Journal of Veterinary Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14405/kjvr.20240046

[10] Baumberger C, Pillo FD, Tapia D, Coloma C, Orozco K, Galdames P, et al.. Prevalence and Seroprevalence of Infectious Bronchitis Virus and Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus in Backyard Poultry in Central Chile. Animals. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162364

[11] Gatica T, Salgado S, Reyes H, Loncoman CA. Development of a qPCR Tool for Detection, Quantification, and Molecular Characterization of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus Variants in Chile from 2019 to 2023. Animals. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15111623

[12] Volkening J, Spatz SJ, García M, Ross TA, Maekawa DA, Rosenthal KS, et al.. Correction: A functional interleukin-4 homolog is encoded in the genome of infectious laryngotracheitis virus: Unveiling a novel virulence factor. PLoS Pathogens. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1013791

[13] Kamal MM, Sadekuzzaman M, Parvin K, Haque M, Hayat S, Islam MA, et al.. Characterization of infectious laryngotracheitis virus isolated from commercial layer chickens in Bangladesh during the year 2021–2022. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2024.k789

[14] Hermann S, Stevens M, Sigrist B, Bilic I, Albini S, Wolfrum N. Unveiling the genetic landscape of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in Switzerland: Evidence for vaccine-like and wild-type strains.. Virology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2024.110217

[15] Zhang X, Tang L, Duan L, Yang R, Liu K, Zhao J, et al.. Molecular characteristics and pathogenicity analysis of infectious laryngotracheitis virus isolated in China from 2015 to 2019. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104751

[16] Spatz S, García M, Fuchs W, Loncoman CA, Volkening J, Ross TA, et al.. Reconstitution and Mutagenesis of Avian Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus from Cosmid and Yeast Centromeric Plasmid Clones. Journal of Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01406-22

[17] Elshafiee EA, Hassan MSH, Provost C, Gagnon C, Ojkić D, Abdul-Careem MF. Comparative full genome sequence analysis of wild-type and chicken embryo origin vaccine-like infectious Laryngotracheitis virus field isolates from Canada.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2022.105350

[18] Elshafiee EA, Isham IM, Najimudeen SM, Perez-Contreras A, Barboza-Solis C, Ravi M, et al.. Host Responses Following Infection with Canadian-Origin Wildtype and Vaccine Revertant Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus. Vaccines. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10050782

[19] Armat M, Vaz P, Browning G, Noormohammadi A, Hartley C, Devlin J. Construction and characterisation of glycoprotein E and glycoprotein I deficient mutants of Australian strains of infectious laryngotracheitis virus using traditional and CRISPR/Cas9-assisted homologous recombination techniques. Virus genes. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-022-01933-5

[20] Assen A, Groves P, Etherington A, Gerber P, Sexton M, Williamson SL, et al.. Field Application of qPCR Monitoring of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus in Settled Chicken House Dust and Its Role in Control of a Major Outbreak. Avian diseases. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/aviandiseases-D-22-00022

[21] Hussein M, Abdullah S. Molecular detection and isolation of infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV) in layer farms of Waset province, Iraq. International Journal of Health Sciences. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6ns4.9179

[22] Yegoraw AA, Assen A, Gerber P, Walkden-Brown S. Transmission of infectious laryngotracheitis virus vaccine and field strains: the role of degree of contact and transmission by whole blood, plasma and poultry dust. Veterinary Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-021-00959-1

[23] Nazir S, Charlesworth RPG, Moens P, Assen A, Walkden-Brown S, Gerber P. A preliminary study of the localization of infectious laryngotracheitis virus glycoprotein E within specific peripheral blood lymphocytes. Avian Pathology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2021.2015062

[24] Razmyar J, Shokrpoor S, Barin A, Gheshlaghi J, Nakhaee P, Khodayari M, et al.. Isolation of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in broiler chicken in Iran: First report. Veterinary Research Forum. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2020.124157.2911

[25] Contreras AP, Meer Fvd, Checkley S, Joseph TM, King R, Ravi M, et al.. Analysis of Whole-Genome Sequences of Infectious laryngotracheitis Virus Isolates from Poultry Flocks in Canada: Evidence of Recombination. Viruses. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12111302

[26] Yegoraw AA, Nazir S, Gerber P, Walkden-Brown S. Airborne Transmission of Vaccinal and Wild Type Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus and Noninfectivity of Extracts of Excreta from Infected Chickens. Avian diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/aviandiseases-D-20-00073

[27] Tran T, Yegoraw AA, Assen A, Walkden-Brown S, Gerber P. Genomic Stability for PCR Detection of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus and Infectious Bronchitis Virus in Poultry Dust Samples Stored Under Different Conditions.. Avian diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/AVIANDISEASES-D-20-00058

[28] Sabir A, Olaogun O, O’Rourke D, Coppo MJC, Devlin J, Konsak-Ilievski B, et al.. Full genomic characterisation of an emerging infectious laryngotracheitis virus class 7b from Australia linked to a vaccine strain revealed its identity.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2019.104067

[29] Tran T, Nazir S, Yegoraw AA, Assen A, Walkden-Brown S, Gerber P. Detection of infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV) in tissues and blood fractions from experimentally infected chickens using PCR and immunostaining analyses.. Research in Veterinary Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2020.11.024

[30] Barboza-Solis C, Contreras AP, Palomino-Tapia VA, Joseph TM, King R, Ravi M, et al.. Genotyping of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus (ILTV) Isolates from Western Canadian Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia Based on Partial Open Reading Frame (ORF) a and b. Animals. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091634

[31] Fakhri O, Devlin J, Browning G, Coppo M, Quinteros JA, Diaz-Méndez A, et al.. Superinfection and recombination of infectious laryngotracheitis virus vaccines in the natural host.. Vaccine. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.064

[32] Thilakarathne D, Hartley C, Diaz-Méndez A, Quinteros JA, Fakhri O, Coppo M, et al.. Latency characteristics in specific pathogen-free chickens 21 and 35 days after intra-tracheal inoculation with vaccine or field strains of infectious laryngotracheitis virus. Avian Pathology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2020.1754331

[33] Ali SA, Almofti YA, Abd-elrahman KA. Immunoinformatics Approach for Multiepitopes Vaccine Prediction against Glycoprotein B of Avian Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus. Adv. Bioinformatics. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1270485

[34] Spatz S, García M, Riblet S, Ross T, Volkening J, Taylor T, et al.. MinION sequencing to genotype US strains of infectious laryngotracheitis virus. Avian Pathology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2019.1579298

[35] Nguyen TV, Ahaduzzaman M, Campbell D, Groves P, Walkden-Brown S, Gerber P. Spatial and temporal variation of Marek's disease virus and infectious laryngotracheitis virus genome in dust samples following live vaccination of layer flocks.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VETMIC.2019.108393

[36] Thilakarathne D, Coppo MJC, Hartley C, Diaz-Méndez A, Quinteros JA, Fakhri O, et al.. Attenuated infectious laryngotracheitis virus vaccines differ in their capacity to establish latency in the trigeminal ganglia of specific pathogen free chickens following eye drop inoculation. PLoS ONE. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213866

[37] Kammon A, Shabba J, Abouzeed Y, Asheg A. Isolation, Serological and Molecular Detection of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus (ILTV) in Chickens in Libya. Approaches in Poultry, Dairy & Veterinary Sciences. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31031/apdv.2020.07.000666

[38] La T, Choi E, Lee J, Park S, Song C, Choi I, et al.. Comparative genome analysis of Korean field strains of infectious laryngotracheitis virus. PLoS ONE. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211158

[39] Thilakarathne D, Hartley C, Diaz-Méndez A, Coppo M, Devlin J. Development and application of a combined molecular and tissue culture-based approach to detect latent infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV) in chickens.. Journal of Virological Methods. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.113797

[40] Gopakumar G, Coppo M, Diaz-Méndez A, Hartley C, Devlin J. Clinical assessment and transcriptome analysis of host immune responses in a vaccination-challenge study using a glycoprotein G deletion mutant vaccine strain of infectious laryngotracheitis virus. Frontiers in Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1458218

[41] Yi C, Li G, Mu Y, Cui S, Zhang D, Xu Q, et al.. Isolation, identification, molecular and pathogenicity characteristics of an infectious laryngotracheitis virus from Hubei province, China. Poultry Science. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.103271

[42] Perez-Contreras A, Barboza-Solis C, Najimudeen SM, Checkley S, Meer F, Joseph TM, et al.. Pathogenic and Transmission Potential of Wildtype and Chicken Embryo Origin (CEO) Vaccine Revertant Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus. Viruses. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13040541

[43] Nazir S, Yegoraw AA, Charlesworth RPG, Williamson SL, Sharpe S, Walkden-Brown S, et al.. Marked differences in virulence of three Australian field isolates of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in meat and layer chickens. Avian Pathology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2020.1801987

[44] Thilakarathne D, Noormohammadi A, Browning G, Quinteros JA, Underwood G, Hartley C, et al.. Pathogenesis and tissue tropism of natural field recombinants of infectious laryngotracheitis virus.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108635

[45] Atasoy M, Rohaim M, Munir M. Simultaneous Deletion of Virulence Factors and Insertion of Antigens into the Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus Using NHEJ-CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre–Lox System for Construction of a Stable Vaccine Vector. Vaccines. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines7040207

[46] Wei X, Shao Y, Han Z, Sun J, Liu S. Glycoprotein-C-gene-deleted recombinant infectious laryngotracheitis virus expressing a genotype VII Newcastle disease virus fusion protein protects against virulent infectious laryngotracheitis virus and Newcastle disease virus.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108835

[47] Abebe S, Ferrara G, Getachew B, Tola EH, Moje N. Serological and Molecular Investigation of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus in Chickens from Robe Town, Southeastern Ethiopia. Animals. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14223227

[48] Müştak İB, Müştak HK. Circulation and Molecular Characterization of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus in Poultry Flocks with Respiratory Disorders in Turkey, 2018–2022. Avian diseases. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/aviandiseases-D-23-00074

[49] Nguyen V, Cao T, Le V, Truong H, Chu T, Dang H, et al.. A Multiplex PCR Method for Simultaneous Detection of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. Veterinary Sciences. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10040272

[50] Ardiçli Ö, Demirbilek S, ÇÖven F, Carli K. A surveillance for avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus, infectious laryngotracheitis virus, avian metapneumovirus, and avian reovirus in poultry flocks with respiratory signs in Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0128.4243

[51] Farag S, Zyan K, Eissa A. Molecular characterization and isolation of Infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV) strains causing outbreaks in layer chicken farms of Kalubia Province, Egypt. Benha veterinary medical journal. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/bvmj.2021.71229.1391

[52] Ali M, Giasuddin M. Prevalence and molecular detection of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in chickens in selected areas of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Livestock Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/bjlr.v27i1.55175

[53] Tesfaye A, Sahle M, Sori T, Kassa T, Garoma A, Koran T, et al.. Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus in Commercial and Backyard Chicken Production Systems in Central and South Ethiopia (First report) ILT in Ethiopian Poultry Production. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfz100

[54] Tran TT, Andronicos N, Ketheesan N, Nazir S, Walkden-Brown S, Gerber PF. Determination of immune responses in mucosal lymphoid tissues following infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV) eye drop and vent brush vaccination of chickens. Avian Pathology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2025.2584351

[55] Tran TT, Andronicos N, Gerber PF. Expression of Immune Genes and Leukocyte Population in the Conjunctiva, Harderian Gland and Trachea of Chickens Inoculated with a Live Vaccine and a Field Strain Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus. Poultry. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry3040030

[56] Ali HHH, Saeed NM, Aziz SA. Investigation of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus in Broiler Flocks in Sulaymaniyah Province, Iraq. The Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30539/ijvm.v47i1.1503

[57] Maekawa D, Riblet S, Whang P, Hurley D, García M. Activation of Cytotoxic Lymphocytes and Presence of Regulatory T Cells in the Trachea of Non-Vaccinated and Vaccinated Chickens as a Recall to an Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus (ILTV) Challenge. Vaccines. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9080865

[58] Song H, Kim H, Kim S, Kwon Y, Kim H. Research Note: Simultaneous detection of infectious laryngotracheitis virus, fowlpox virus, and reticuloendotheliosis virus in chicken specimens. Poultry Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.01.009

[59] Maekawa D, Whang P, Riblet S, Hurley D, Guy, J, García M. Assessing the infiltration of immune cells in the upper trachea mucosa after infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILTV) vaccination and challenge. Avian Pathology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2021.1989379

[60] Krunkosky M, Garcia M, Beltrán G, Williams SM, Hurley DJ, Gogal RM. Ocular exposure to infectious laryngotracheitis virus alters leukocyte subsets in the head-associated lymphoid tissues and trachea of 6-week-old White Leghorn chickens. Avian Pathology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2020.1757036

[61] Al-Rawi MA. Molecular Differentiation by PCR-RFLP Test of Infectious Laryngotracheitis virus Strains Isolated in Iraq. Full Text Book of Vet.Congress3. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47832/vet.congress3-6

[62] Mo J, Angelichio M, Gow L, Leathers V, Jackwood M. Quantitative real-time PCR assays for the concurrent diagnosis of infectious laryngotracheitis virus, Newcastle disease virus and avian metapneumovirus in poultry. Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.21153

[63] El-Saied M, El-Mahdy M, Bayoumi M, Soliman R, Elsayed MF, Sakr EE, et al.. Pathogenicity and vaccine efficacy of two virulent infectious laryngotracheitis virus strains in Egypt. BMC Veterinary Research. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03458-3

[64] Yang Z, Murata S, Fujisawa S, Takehara M, Katakura K, Hmoon MM, et al.. Molecular detection and genetic characterization of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in poultry in Myanmar. BMC Veterinary Research. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02666-z

[65] Rojas M, König G, König G, Vagnozzi A, Vera F, Scolaro L, et al.. Optimization and application of a high-resolution melting protocol in the characterization of avian infectious laryngotracheitis virus.. Revista Argentina de Microbiología. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ram.2020.04.008

[66] Can-Sahna K. Characterization of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus Isolates from Turkey by Molecular and Sequence Analysis. Pakistan Veterinary Journal. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29261/pakvetj/2020.051

[67] Ponnusamy P, Sukumar K, Raja A, Saravanan S, Srinivasan P, Ramya K, et al.. Design of a Multi-Epitope Vaccine Candidate Against Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus Affecting Poultry by Computational Approaches. Biology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14070765

[68] Cea-Callejo P, Trenado C, Doménech A, Madrid R, Benítez L. Visual Nanoprobe-Enhanced Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Protocol for Rapid Detection of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus from Avian Respiratory Swabs. Bio-protocol. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21769/BioProtoc.5595

[69] Becerra R, Maekawa D, García M. Protection Efficacy of Recombinant HVT-ND-LT and the Live Attenuated Tissue Culture Origin Vaccines Against Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus When Administered Individually or in Combination. Avian diseases. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/aviandiseases-D-23-00010

[70] Gamal M, Soliman Y. Humoral and Interferon-γ Immune Response to DNA Vaccine Encoding The surface Glycoprotein B of Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus. Egyptian Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/ejvs.2023.204396.1483

[71] Asif K, O’Rourke D, Shil P, Steer-Cope PA, Legione A, Marenda M, et al.. Rapid typing of infectious laryngotracheitis virus directly from tracheal tissues based on next-generation sequencing. Archives of Virology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-022-05393-y

[72] Barboza-Solis C, Najimudeen SM, Perez-Contreras A, Ali A, Joseph TM, King R, et al.. Evaluation of Recombinant Herpesvirus of Turkey Laryngotracheitis (rHVT-LT) Vaccine against Genotype VI Canadian Wild-Type Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus (ILTV) Infection. Vaccines. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9121425

[73] Maekawa D, Riblet S, Whang P, Alvarado I, García M. A Cell Line Adapted Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus Strain (BΔORFC) for in ovo and Hatchery Spray Vaccination Alone or in Combination with a Recombinant HVT-LT Vaccine. Avian diseases. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/aviandiseases-D-20-00050

[74] Wang W, Wang C, Zhang Z, Zhang P, Zhai X, Li X, et al.. Recombinase-aided amplification–lateral flow dipstick assay, a specific and sensitive method for visual detection of avian infectious laryngotracheitis virus. Poultry Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.12.008

[75] Yu J, Lin Y, Cao Y, Li X, Liao D, Ye Y, et al.. Development and application of a colloidal gold test strip for the rapid detection of the infectious laryngotracheitis virus. Poultry Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.066

[76] Zhu Y, Zeng F, Sun J, Liu X, Wu M, Huang B, et al.. Application of recombinase polymerase amplification method for rapid detection of infectious laryngotracheitis virus.. Molecular and Cellular Probes. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcp.2020.101646

[77] Wang W, Wang C, Zhang Z, Zhang P, Yao S, Liu J, et al.. Research Note: Rapid detection of avian infectious laryngotracheitis virus with real-time fluorescence-based recombinase-aided amplification. Poultry Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.06.025

[78] Ebrahimi M, Shahsavandi S, Yousefi A, Ebrahimi N. Isolation, identification and chemical inactivation of infectious laryngotracheitis virus for use as a vaccine candidate.. Acta virologica. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4149/av_2021_101

[79] Palomino-Tapia VA, Zavala G, Cheng S, García M. Long-term protection against a virulent field isolate of infectious laryngotracheitis virus induced by inactivated, recombinant, and modified live virus vaccines in commercial layers. Avian Pathology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2019.1568389

[80] Maekawa D, Beltrán G, Riblet S, García M. Protection Efficacy of a Recombinant Herpesvirus of Turkey Vaccine Against Infectious Laryngotracheitis Virus Administered In Ovo to Broilers at Three Standardized Doses. Avian diseases. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/12029-011119-Reg.1