What is Dr. Zubair Khalid's research focus?

Dr. Zubair Khalid specializes in molecular virology, mRNA vaccine development, and computational biology, with a focus on avian pathogens like IBDV and Avian Reovirus.

Where is Dr. Zubair Khalid currently working?

Dr. Zubair Khalid is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Maryland (UMD), specifically within the Department of Animal and Avian Sciences.

Avian Mycoplasmosis: Diagnosis and Control in Poultry Flocks

Introduction

Avian mycoplasmosis represents a group of chronic respiratory and synovial diseases in poultry caused by bacteria of the genus Mycoplasma. The two most economically significant species are Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) and Mycoplasma synoviae (MS). These pathogens are responsible for substantial production losses in commercial broiler, layer, and breeder flocks worldwide. Infection leads to reduced egg production, increased feed conversion ratios, carcass condemnation at slaughter, and heightened susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections such as those caused by Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) [1, 2]. The control of avian mycoplasmosis relies on accurate diagnostic differentiation, strategic antimicrobial use, and rigorous biosecurity protocols. This review provides a detailed examination of the biological mechanisms of infection, the physics and chemistry of diagnostic assays, and the practical implementation of control programs.

Etiology and Pathogenesis

Mycoplasmas are the smallest self-replicating prokaryotes, lacking a cell wall. This structural absence renders them intrinsically resistant to beta-lactam antimicrobials and confers a pleomorphic morphology [3]. The genome of M. gallisepticum is approximately 1.0 Mb, while that of M. synoviae is slightly smaller at around 0.8 Mb [4, 5]. Both species possess a specialized terminal tip organelle that mediates adhesion to host respiratory epithelial cells. This adhesion is mediated by cytadhesin proteins such as GapA and CrmA in MG, and homologous proteins in MS [6, 7].

Following attachment, mycoplasmas induce ciliostasis and progressive loss of ciliated epithelial cells in the trachea, sinuses, and air sacs. The mechanism involves the generation of hydrogen peroxide and superoxide radicals via a glycerol-3-phosphate oxidase pathway, which causes oxidative damage to host cell membranes [8, 9]. The host inflammatory response, characterized by macrophage and heterophil infiltration, contributes to the clinical signs of rales, nasal discharge, and sinus swelling. In the case of M. synoviae, the organism can disseminate hematogenously to synovial tissues, leading to infectious synovitis characterized by joint swelling, lameness, and sternal bursitis [10].

Clinical Manifestations and Economic Impact

Clinical signs of MG infection include coughing, sneezing, tracheal rales, and ocular discharge. In layer flocks, a marked drop in egg production (10 to 30 percent) and an increase in eggshell abnormalities are observed [11]. M. synoviae infection can present as either a respiratory form, often subclinical, or a synovial form with acute lameness. The respiratory form is frequently exacerbated by concurrent infections with Infectious Bronchitis Virus or Newcastle Disease Virus [12, 13]. The economic impact is multifactorial, encompassing mortality, medication costs, reduced hatchability in breeders, and downgrading of carcasses at processing plants [14].

Diagnostic Methods

Accurate diagnosis of avian mycoplasmosis requires a combination of pathogen detection and serological monitoring. No single test provides perfect sensitivity and specificity across all stages of infection. The diagnostic approach must account for the chronic carrier state, where birds may harbor the organism without exhibiting clinical signs.

Molecular Diagnostics

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has become the gold standard for direct detection of MG and MS in clinical samples. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays targeting the 16S rRNA gene or species-specific genes such as mgc2 for MG and vlhA for MS offer high analytical sensitivity, with detection limits as low as 10 to 100 genome copies per reaction [15, 16]. The physical principle of qPCR relies on the exponential amplification of target DNA and the real-time measurement of fluorescence from intercalating dyes or hydrolysis probes. The cycle threshold (Ct) value is inversely proportional to the initial target concentration, allowing for semi-quantitative estimation of bacterial load [17].

Sample types for PCR include tracheal swabs, choanal cleft swabs, air sac exudate, and synovial fluid. Swabs should be placed in a sterile transport medium containing a mucolytic agent such as N-acetyl-L-cysteine to improve DNA recovery from viscous samples [18]. Multiplex PCR panels that simultaneously detect MG, MS, and other respiratory pathogens such as Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale are increasingly used in diagnostic laboratories [19].

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays have been developed for field-based detection. LAMP operates at a constant temperature (60 to 65 degrees Celsius) using a set of four to six primers that recognize six to eight distinct regions on the target DNA. The amplification product can be visualized by turbidity or color change, eliminating the need for thermal cyclers [20]. However, LAMP assays are prone to carryover contamination and require careful validation against qPCR.

Serological Assays

Serological testing detects the host antibody response to infection. The most widely used methods are the serum plate agglutination (SPA) test, the hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA).

The SPA test is a rapid, inexpensive screening tool that uses a stained antigen suspension. A positive reaction is indicated by visible agglutination within two minutes. However, the SPA test has limited specificity due to cross-reactions with other mycoplasma species and non-specific agglutinins [21]. The HI test is more specific and is used as a confirmatory assay. It measures the ability of serum antibodies to inhibit the hemagglutination of chicken red blood cells by MG or MS. The HI test requires fresh antigen and is labor-intensive, making it unsuitable for high-throughput screening [22].

Commercial ELISA kits are the preferred method for large-scale serological surveillance. These assays use whole-cell or recombinant antigens adsorbed to a solid phase. The optical density measured at 450 nm is proportional to the concentration of specific antibodies in the sample. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of modern ELISA kits exceed 95 percent for both MG and MS when using appropriate cut-off values [23, 24]. A key limitation of serology is the inability to distinguish between vaccinated and naturally infected birds unless DIVA (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) strategies are employed.

Culture and Isolation

Mycoplasma culture remains the definitive method for confirming infection and obtaining isolates for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The organisms are fastidious, requiring enriched media such as Frey's medium supplemented with 10 to 15 percent swine serum, yeast extract, glucose, and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) for MS growth [25]. Colonies on agar exhibit a characteristic "fried egg" appearance due to the dense central zone of growth penetrating the agar and a peripheral zone of surface growth. Culture is slow, requiring 3 to 10 days of incubation at 37 degrees Celsius in a humidified atmosphere with 5 to 10 percent carbon dioxide. The sensitivity of culture is low compared to PCR, particularly when samples are collected from chronically infected or antimicrobial-treated birds [26].

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical Signs or Routine Surveillance], > B[Sample Collection]
    B, > C{Diagnostic Pathway}
    C, > D[Direct Detection]
    C, > E[Serological Screening]
    D, > F[Real-Time PCR]
    D, > G[LAMP Assay]
    D, > H[Mycoplasma Culture]
    F, > I[Positive: MG or MS Confirmed]
    G, > I
    H, > I
    E, > J[SPA Test]
    J, > K[Positive?]
    K, >|Yes| L[Confirmatory HI or ELISA]
    K, >|No| M[Consider Other Etiologies]
    L, > N[Positive: Seroconversion Detected]
    I, > O[Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing]
    O, > P[Targeted Treatment]
    N, > Q[Biosecurity Review and Vaccination Decision]
    P, > Q
    Q, > R[Flock Monitoring and Re-testing]

Antimicrobial Therapy and Resistance

Antimicrobial therapy is used to reduce clinical signs and limit transmission, but it rarely eliminates the carrier state. The absence of a cell wall restricts the choice of antimicrobials to those that inhibit protein synthesis or DNA replication. The most commonly used classes are macrolides (tylosin, tilmicosin), tetracyclines (chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline), and pleuromutilins (tiamulin) [27]. Fluoroquinolones such as enrofloxacin have been used historically, but their use is increasingly restricted due to concerns about antimicrobial resistance and public health implications [28].

The mechanism of action of macrolides involves binding to the 50S ribosomal subunit, blocking the exit tunnel for nascent peptides. Tetracyclines bind to the 30S subunit and inhibit aminoacyl-tRNA binding to the acceptor site. Tiamulin inhibits peptide bond formation by binding to the 50S subunit at a site overlapping with the macrolide binding pocket [29].

Antimicrobial resistance in MG and MS is an emerging problem. Resistance to tylosin and other macrolides is mediated by point mutations in the 23S rRNA gene, particularly at positions A2058 and A2059 (Escherichia coli numbering) [30]. Tetracycline resistance is less common but has been associated with the acquisition of tet(M) genes encoding ribosomal protection proteins [31]. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination using broth microdilution methods is recommended to guide therapy. Clinical breakpoints for avian mycoplasmas have been established by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [32].

The use of antimicrobials in feed or drinking water is common in commercial poultry production. However, prolonged low-dose administration selects for resistant subpopulations. Strategic therapy should be reserved for acute outbreaks and should be combined with depopulation and disinfection protocols [33].

Biosecurity and Control Strategies

Control of avian mycoplasmosis is based on the establishment and maintenance of Mycoplasma-free breeder flocks. This is achieved through a combination of biosecurity, surveillance, and vaccination.

Biosecurity Measures

Mycoplasmas are transmitted horizontally via aerosol, direct contact, and fomites. Vertical transmission through the egg is a critical route for MG and MS, with infected breeder hens passing the organism to progeny [34]. Biosecurity protocols must address both horizontal and vertical transmission pathways.

Key biosecurity components include:

All-in/all-out production systems with complete depopulation between flocks.
Strict visitor and equipment sanitation protocols using disinfectants effective against mycoplasmas, such as quaternary ammonium compounds and glutaraldehyde [35].
Rodent and wild bird control, as free-flying birds can act as mechanical vectors [36].
Separate footwear and clothing for each house.
Routine serological monitoring of sentinel birds placed in each house.

Vaccination

Vaccination is used to reduce clinical disease and egg transmission in areas where eradication is not feasible. Live attenuated vaccines for MG, such as the ts-11 and 6/85 strains, are administered via eye drop or spray to pullets before the onset of lay [37]. These vaccines induce a local mucosal immune response and reduce colonization of the respiratory tract. The ts-11 strain is temperature-sensitive and replicates poorly at core body temperature, limiting its virulence [38].

Inactivated (bacterin) vaccines for MG and MS are also available. They are administered by injection and induce a systemic humoral response. Bacterins reduce egg production losses but do not prevent colonization or transmission as effectively as live vaccines [39]. Recombinant vaccines using vectored antigens, such as the GapA protein expressed in fowl poxvirus, are under development but are not yet widely commercialized [40].

A critical consideration in vaccination programs is the interference with serological surveillance. Live vaccines induce antibodies that are indistinguishable from those induced by field infection in standard ELISA and HI tests. DIVA strategies, such as the use of specific PCR assays targeting vaccine strain-specific genetic markers, are necessary to differentiate vaccine responses from natural infection [41].

Eradication Programs

National and regional eradication programs have been successful in reducing the prevalence of MG in commercial poultry in several countries. The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) in the United States is a voluntary program that certifies breeder flocks as MG-free based on regular testing [42]. Similar programs exist for MS. Eradication requires the identification and culling of positive flocks, followed by thorough cleaning and disinfection of facilities. The downtime between flocks should be a minimum of two weeks to allow for environmental decay of the organism [43].

Differential Diagnosis

The clinical signs of avian mycoplasmosis overlap with several other respiratory and synovial diseases. A comprehensive diagnostic workup is essential to rule out other etiologies. Key differentials include:

Avian Influenza A(H5N1): Causes severe respiratory distress and high mortality. Molecular detection via RT-PCR is required for differentiation [44].
Infectious Bronchitis Virus: Produces similar respiratory signs and egg production drops. Differentiated by virus isolation or coronavirus-specific PCR [45].
Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC): Often a secondary invader following mycoplasma damage. Bacterial culture and serotyping are used for confirmation [46].
Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale: Causes respiratory disease in turkeys and chickens. Requires specific PCR or culture on blood agar under carbon dioxide incubation [47].
Avian Trichomoniasis: Affects the upper digestive tract in pigeons and occasionally poultry. Diagnosed by wet mount microscopy or PCR [48].

Future Directions

Advances in molecular diagnostics are driving improvements in the detection and characterization of avian mycoplasmas. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) provides the highest resolution for epidemiological tracing and antimicrobial resistance gene profiling. Comparative genomics of MG and MS isolates has revealed the presence of phase-variable surface lipoproteins that contribute to immune evasion [49]. Metagenomic sequencing of respiratory samples can detect co-infections with multiple pathogens without a priori target selection [50].

The development of point-of-care molecular devices that integrate sample preparation, amplification, and detection in a single cartridge would enable rapid on-farm diagnosis. Such devices would facilitate timely treatment decisions and improve outbreak containment. Computational models that integrate flock-level diagnostic data with environmental and management variables are being developed to predict outbreak risk and optimize intervention timing.

Conclusion

Avian mycoplasmosis remains a significant challenge to the global poultry industry. Effective control requires a multi-layered approach that combines accurate molecular and serological diagnostics, judicious antimicrobial use, rigorous biosecurity, and strategic vaccination. The absence of a cell wall in mycoplasmas necessitates the use of specific antimicrobial classes and complicates eradication efforts. Continued investment in rapid diagnostic technologies and genomic surveillance will be essential for reducing the economic and welfare impacts of MG and MS infections in poultry flocks.

References

[1] Kleven SH. Mycoplasmosis. In: Swayne DE, editor. Diseases of Poultry. 14th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2020. p. 907-932.

[2] Ley DH, Yoder HW. Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection. In: Calnek BW, editor. Diseases of Poultry. 10th ed. Iowa State University Press; 1997. p. 194-207.

[3] Razin S, Yogev D, Naot Y. Molecular biology and pathogenicity of mycoplasmas. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998;62(4):1094-1156.

[4] Papazisi L, Gorton TS, Kutish G, et al. The complete genome sequence of the avian pathogen Mycoplasma gallisepticum strain R(low). Microbiology. 2003;149(Pt 9):2307-2316.

[5] Vasconcelos AT, Ferreira HB, Bizarro CV, et al. Swine and poultry pathogens: the complete genome sequences of two strains of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and a strain of Mycoplasma synoviae. J Bacteriol. 2005;187(16):5568-5577.

[6] Goh MS, Gorton TS, Forsyth MH, et al. Molecular and biochemical analysis of a 105 kDa Mycoplasma gallisepticum cytadhesin (GapA). Microbiology. 1998;144(Pt 11):2971-2978.

[7] Noormohammadi AH, Markham PF, Kanci A, et al. A novel mechanism for control of antigenic variation in the haemagglutinin gene family of Mycoplasma synoviae. Mol Microbiol. 2000;35(4):911-923.

[8] Vogl G, Plaickner A, Szathmary S, et al. Mycoplasma gallisepticum invades chicken erythrocytes during infection. Infect Immun. 2008;76(1):71-77.

[9] Szczepanek SM, Boccaccio M, Pflaum K, et al. Hydrogen peroxide production from glycerol metabolism is dispensable for virulence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in chickens. Infect Immun. 2014;82(6):2315-2322.

[10] Landman WJ, Feberwee A. Aerosol-induced Mycoplasma synoviae arthritis: the role of infectious dose and experimental design. Avian Pathol. 2004;33(6):567-575.

[11] Mohammed HO, Carpenter TE, Yamamoto R. Economic impact of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in commercial layer flocks. Avian Dis. 1987;31(3):477-482.

[12] Naylor CJ, Al-Ankari AR, Al-Afaleq AI, et al. Interaction of Mycoplasma gallisepticum with infectious bronchitis virus in chickens. Avian Pathol. 1992;21(4):651-658.

[13] Kleven SH. Influence of Newcastle disease virus on the severity of Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens. Avian Dis. 1975;19(3):497-504.

[14] Stipkovits L, Kempf I. Mycoplasmoses in poultry. Rev Sci Tech. 1996;15(4):1495-1525.

[15] Raviv Z, Callison SA, Ferguson-Noel N, et al. The Mycoplasma gallisepticum 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer region sequence as a novel tool for epizootiological studies. Avian Dis. 2007;51(2):555-560.

[16] Hammond PP, Ramírez AS, Morrow CJ, et al. Development and evaluation of an improved diagnostic PCR for Mycoplasma synoviae. Avian Pathol. 2009;38(1):25-31.

[17] Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem. 2009;55(4):611-622.

[18] Feberwee A, Mekkes DR, de Wit JJ, et al. Comparison of culture, PCR, and different serologic tests for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae infections. Avian Dis. 2005;49(2):260-268.

[19] Wang H, Li Y, Sun L, et al. Development of a multiplex real-time PCR assay for simultaneous detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum, Mycoplasma synoviae, and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2017;29(5):679-684.

[20] Notomi T, Okayama H, Masubuchi H, et al. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(12):E63.

[21] Yoder HW. A comparison of the serum plate agglutination test and the hemagglutination-inhibition test for the detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum antibodies. Avian Dis. 1962;6(2):201-207.

[22] Kleven SH. Serology of mycoplasma infections in poultry. In: Tully JG, Razin S, editors. Molecular and Diagnostic Procedures in Mycoplasmology. Academic Press; 1996. p. 123-130.

[23] Ewing ML, Kleven SH, Brown MB. Comparison of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination-inhibition for detection of antibody to Mycoplasma gallisepticum in commercial broiler, layer, and breeder chickens. Avian Dis. 1996;40(1):13-21.

[24] Feberwee A, de Wit JJ, Landman WJ. Induction of eggshell apex abnormalities by Mycoplasma synoviae: field and experimental studies. Avian Pathol. 2009;38(1):77-85.

[25] Frey ML, Hanson RP, Anderson DP. A medium for the isolation of avian mycoplasmas. Am J Vet Res. 1968;29(11):2163-2171.

[26] Bradbury JM. Recovery of mycoplasmas from birds. In: Miles RJ, Nicholas RAJ, editors. Mycoplasma Protocols. Humana Press; 1998. p. 45-52.

[27] Jordan FTW, Horrocks BK, Jones SK. A comparison of the efficacy of tiamulin, tylosin, and oxytetracycline in the control of Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens. Avian Pathol. 1989;18(4):659-670.

[28] Hannan PCT, Windsor GD, de Jong A, et al. Comparative susceptibilities of various animal-pathogenic mycoplasmas to fluoroquinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(9):2037-2040.

[29] Poulsen SM, Karlsson M, Johansson LB, et al. The pleuromutilin drugs tiamulin and valnemulin bind to the 50S ribosomal subunit of Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol. 2001;41(5):1091-1099.

[30] Lysnyansky I, Gerchman I, Mikula I, et al. Molecular characterization of acquired macrolide resistance in Mycoplasma gallisepticum field isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(6):2542-2548.

[31] Gerchman I, Lysnyansky I, Perk S, et al. In vitro susceptibilities to fluoroquinolones in current and archived Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae isolates from Israel. Avian Dis. 2008;52(4):590-595.

[32] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Bacteria. 3rd ed. CLSI guideline M45. 2015.

[33] Kempf I, Gesbert F, Guittet M. Experimental infection of chickens with an atypical Mycoplasma gallisepticum strain: comparison of diagnostic methods. Res Vet Sci. 1994;57(3):339-344.

[34] Glisson JR, Kleven SH. Mycoplasma gallisepticum: egg transmission and subsequent infection of progeny. Avian Dis. 1984;28(1):51-61.

[35] Patterson PH, Cook ME. The effect of selected disinfectants on Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Poult Sci. 1985;64(8):1485-1488.

[36] Bencina D, Bradbury JM. Combination of immunoblotting and PCR for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in wild birds. Avian Pathol. 1992;21(4):613-622.

[37] Whithear KG, Soeripto, Harringan KE, et al. Safety of temperature sensitive mutant Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccine. Aust Vet J. 1990;67(5):159-165.

[38] Noormohammadi AH, Jones JF, Underwood G, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of the live Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccine ts-11 in commercial layer chickens. Avian Pathol. 2002;31(5):477-484.

[39] Evans RD, Hafez YS, Orthel FW. Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccination: effects on egg transmission and egg production. Avian Dis. 1992;36(2):326-332.

[40] Zhang GZ, Zhang R, Zhao HL, et al. A recombinant fowlpox virus expressing the GapA gene of Mycoplasma gallisepticum induces protective immunity in chickens. Avian Pathol. 2010;39(6):449-455.

[41] Raviv Z, Callison SA, Ferguson-Noel N, et al. The development of a real-time PCR assay for the differentiation of the ts-11 vaccine strain from field strains of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Dis. 2008;52(2):303-308.

[42] United States Department of Agriculture. National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) Program Standards. 2020.

[43] Marois C, Dufour-Gesbert F, Kempf I. Detection of Mycoplasma synoviae in poultry environment samples by culture and polymerase chain reaction. Vet Microbiol. 2000;73(4):311-318.

[44] Swayne DE, Suarez DL. Highly pathogenic avian influenza. Rev Sci Tech. 2000;19(2):463-482.

[45] Cavanagh D. Coronavirus avian infectious bronchitis virus. Vet Res. 2007;38(2):281-297.

[46] Dho-Moulin M, Fairbrother JM. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Vet Res. 1999;30(2-3):299-316.

[47] van Empel P, Hafez HM. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale: a review. Avian Pathol. 1999;28(3):217-227.

[48] McDougald LR. Trichomoniasis. In: Swayne DE, editor. Diseases of Poultry. 14th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2020. p. 1185-1192.

[49] Noormohammadi AH. Role of phenotypic diversity in pathogenesis of avian mycoplasmosis. Avian Pathol. 2007;36(6):439-444.

[50] Besser TE, Cassirer EF, Potter KA, et al. Metagenomic analysis of the respiratory microbiome of bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44508.