Avian Mycoplasmosis in Poultry: Clinical Signs and Control

1. Introduction

Avian mycoplasmosis represents a group of economically significant infectious diseases affecting domestic poultry worldwide. The primary etiological agents within the class Mollicutes are Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) and Mycoplasma synoviae (MS). These cell wall deficient bacteria are characterized by their small genome size, limited biosynthetic capacity, and obligate parasitic lifestyle, requiring close association with host epithelial cells for survival [1, 2]. MG is the primary cause of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) in chickens and infectious sinusitis in turkeys, while MS is associated with respiratory disease and infectious synovitis in both chickens and turkeys [3, 4]. Both pathogens are transmitted both vertically, through the egg, and horizontally, via direct contact and airborne fomites, making them particularly challenging to eradicate once established in a flock [5].

The economic impact of avian mycoplasmosis is profound, encompassing reduced egg production, decreased hatchability, increased feed conversion ratios, mortality, and carcass condemnations at processing [6, 7]. Furthermore, infections with MG or MS often predispose birds to secondary bacterial infections, particularly with Escherichia coli (avian pathogenic E. coli, APEC), exacerbating clinical disease severity and antimicrobial use [8]. This article provides a detailed technical review of the clinical manifestations, diagnostic approaches, and integrated control strategies for avian mycoplasmosis in poultry, with a focus on MG and MS. For a related discussion on the role of E. coli in respiratory disease complexes, see Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC): Virulence Factors, Rapid Diagnostic Assays, and Biosecurity Strategies. Understanding the pathogenesis of this complex is also relevant to Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex (BRDC): Bacterial Pathogens, Metagenomic Diagnostics, and Antimicrobial Stewardship, where similar polymicrobial interactions occur.

2. Etiology and Pathogenesis

Mycoplasmas are the smallest self-replicating prokaryotes, lacking a rigid cell wall, which confers intrinsic resistance to beta-lactam antimicrobials and dictates their pleomorphic morphology [9]. The genome of M. gallisepticum is approximately 1.0 Mb, while that of M. synoviae is slightly smaller at around 0.8 Mb. This genomic reduction results in a dependency on the host for essential nutrients such as cholesterol and purines [1].

Pathogenesis involves adhesion to the respiratory epithelium via specialized attachment organelles. In MG, the major cytadhesin is the GapA protein, which binds to sialic acid receptors on host ciliated epithelial cells [10]. This adhesion is the critical first step in establishing infection, followed by the secretion of hydrogen peroxide and other cytotoxic metabolites that cause ciliostasis, loss of cilia, and exfoliation of epithelial cells [11]. This damage disrupts the mucociliary escalator, impairing clearance of inhaled pathogens and particulate matter. The resulting inflammatory response is characterized by infiltration of lymphocytes, macrophages, and plasma cells, leading to the thickening of the tracheal mucosa and air sac walls [12]. MS, while also capable of colonizing the respiratory tract, shows a predilection for the synovial membranes of joints and tendon sheaths, leading to the characteristic synovitis [13]. The exact mechanisms of tissue tropism for MS are less defined but are believed to involve specific adhesins and variable surface lipoproteins that facilitate immune evasion and systemic dissemination [14].

Vertical transmission is a key epidemiological feature. Both MG and MS can colonize the reproductive tract of laying hens, leading to infection of developing ova and subsequent embryo infection [5]. Infected chicks that hatch are efficient disseminators of the organism within brooder houses. Horizontal transmission occurs through direct bird-to-bird contact, inhalation of aerosolized respiratory droplets, and contaminated fomites such as feed, water, and equipment [15]. The persistence of mycoplasmas in the environment is limited, typically surviving for hours to days depending on temperature and organic matter load [16].

3. Clinical Signs and Pathological Findings

The clinical presentation of avian mycoplasmosis varies considerably depending on the species of mycoplasma, the age and immune status of the host, environmental stressors, and the presence of concurrent infections.

3.1. Mycoplasma gallisepticum Infection

In chickens, MG infection primarily manifests as chronic respiratory disease. Clinical signs develop insidiously over several weeks and are exacerbated by stress factors such as ammonia build-up, dust, high stocking density, and vaccination reactions (e.g., to Newcastle disease or infectious bronchitis virus vaccines) [3, 17]. Primary signs include:

• Respiratory signs: Rales (tracheal rales), coughing, sneezing, snicking, and nasal discharge. In severe cases, dyspnea and gasping may be observed.
• Ocular signs: Conjunctivitis, periocular swelling, and frothy exudate from the infraorbital sinuses.
• General signs: Reduced feed intake, weight loss, decreased egg production (10-20%), and reduced hatchability due to increased embryo mortality.
• Morbidity and mortality: Morbidity is typically high (approaching 100%), but mortality is usually low (5-10%) unless complicated by secondary infections like APEC, resulting in colibacillosis and airsacculitis [8].

In turkeys, MG causes infectious sinusitis, characterized by dramatic swelling of the infraorbital sinuses due to the accumulation of caseous to fibrinous exudate [4]. Respiratory signs are more severe in turkeys compared to chickens, with high morbidity and significant mortality possible, particularly in young poults.

On post-mortem examination, typical lesions are confined to the respiratory tract. Gross findings include:

• Catarrhal to fibrinous inflammation of the nasal passages, sinuses, and trachea.
• Thickening and opacity of the air sacs (airsacculitis). In chronic cases, air sacs may contain caseous exudate.
• Fibrinous pericarditis and perihepatitis, when accompanied by E. coli co-infection [8].

Histologically, the hallmark lesion is a lymphoplasmacytic tracheitis with epithelial hyperplasia, loss of cilia, and subepithelial lymphoid follicle formation [12].

3.2. Mycoplasma synoviae Infection

MS causes two distinct disease presentations: respiratory infection and infectious synovitis [13].

• Respiratory form: Often subclinical, MS infection can present similarly to mild MG, with rales, coughing, and nasal discharge. It is frequently a component of the respiratory disease complex in broilers, often undetected unless complicated [18].
• Synovial form: This is a more classic presentation, particularly in growing birds. Clinical signs include:
  • Lameness, reluctance to move, and swollen joints (hock, stifle, wing joints).
  • Swollen foot pads (pododermatitis) and sternal bursitis.
  • Ruffled feathers, depression, and stunting.
  • In layers, a transient drop in egg production may be seen, along with a characteristic reduction in eggshell quality, specifically a thinning of the shell at the equator and increased shell translucency [19].

Post-mortem findings in the synovial form include:

• Fibrinous to caseous exudate within the joint spaces and tendon sheaths. Early lesions may show a yellowish, viscous fluid.
• Rupture of tendons and cartilage erosion in chronic cases.
• The lesions are distinct from bacterial arthritis caused by Staphylococcus aureus or E. coli, as they are typically more fibrinous and less purulent [13].

Table 1: Comparative Clinical Features of MG and MS Infections in Chickens

4. Diagnosis

Accurate diagnosis of avian mycoplasmosis requires a combination of clinical observation, gross pathology, and laboratory testing. Due to the fastidious nature of mycoplasmas and the possibility of subclinical infections, laboratory confirmation is essential for effective control. The three primary diagnostic pillars are isolation and identification, serology, and molecular detection.

4.1. Bacterial Isolation and Identification

Isolation of the causative agent remains the gold standard for definitive diagnosis, although it is time-consuming and technically demanding. Mycoplasmas are fastidious and require specialized, enriched media such as Frey's medium or modified Hayflick's medium, supplemented with 10-15% swine or horse serum, yeast extract, and antibacterial agents (e.g., thallium acetate and penicillin) to inhibit competing bacteria [20].

Samples for culture include tracheal or choanal cleft swabs, air sac lesions, joint exudate, or sinus fluid. Swabs should be placed in transport medium immediately and refrigerated, as mycoplasmas are sensitive to drying and temperature fluctuations [21]. Cultures are incubated at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5-10% CO2 for up to 7-21 days. Growth is indicated by the development of characteristic microscopic "fried egg" colonies on solid media. Identification to the species level is achieved through:

• Growth inhibition tests: Using specific hyperimmune antisera.
• Epifluorescence: Using species-specific monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies.
• Metabolic inhibition tests: Based on the inhibition of glucose fermentation (MG) or arginine hydrolysis (MS) by specific antisera [22].

4.2. Serological Testing

Serology is widely used for flock-level screening and monitoring, particularly within breeder and layer operations. The most common assays include the rapid serum agglutination (RSA) test and the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for Feline Leukemia Virus (though applied to mycoplasma) which is a standard, though unrelated, reference for the immunoassay platform.

• Rapid Serum Agglutination (RSA): This is a simple, inexpensive, and rapid test performed by mixing a stained mycoplasma antigen with serum on a glass plate. A visible agglutination indicates a positive reaction. It is highly sensitive for detecting acute infections (IgM) but can yield false positives due to non-specific agglutinins or cross-reactivity with other Mycoplasma species or Pasteurella multocida [23]. It is best used for screening flocks, with positive results confirmed by a more specific test.
• Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI): The HI test is highly specific for MG and MS used as a confirmatory test. It measures the ability of serum antibodies to inhibit the hemagglutination of chicken or turkey red blood cells by the mycoplasma. It is less sensitive than RSA for early infections but is more specific [24].
• ELISA: Commercial ELISA kits are available for the detection of antibodies against MG and MS. These assays are quantitative, high-throughput, and automated, making them ideal for routine serological monitoring. They detect both IgG and IgM antibodies. ELISAs can be used to detect infection at the flock level and are useful for monitoring vaccine responses. However, they do not distinguish between antibodies derived from natural infection and those from vaccination [25].

A common diagnostic pitfall is the inability of serology to discriminate between different serovars or strains, and the window period between infection and seroconversion (typically 7-14 days). A four-fold rise in HI titer or a significant increase in ELISA S/P ratio between paired serum samples is considered diagnostic of recent infection.

4.3. Molecular Detection

Nucleic acid based detection, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR), has become the cornerstone of modern mycoplasma diagnostics due to its high sensitivity, specificity, and rapid turnaround time.

• Conventional and Real-Time PCR: PCR targets specific gene sequences, such as the 16S rRNA gene, the mgc2 gene (for MG), or the vlhA gene (for MS). Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) offers the additional advantage of quantification and reduced risk of contamination due to closed-tube systems [26, 27]. PCR can detect mycoplasma DNA directly from clinical samples (tracheal swabs, air sacs, egg shells) without the need for culture, allowing for detection of non-viable organisms and those that are difficult to culture [28].
• Multiplex PCR: Assays that simultaneously detect MG, MS, and other avian respiratory pathogens (e.g., Haemophilus paragallinarum, Avibacterium paragallinarum, and avian influenza virus) are available, allowing for rapid differential diagnosis of respiratory disease complexes [29].
• Genotyping and Molecular Epidemiology: Strain differentiation is crucial for epidemiological investigations and for distinguishing field strains from vaccine strains. Techniques include:
  • Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) PCR.
  • Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of PCR products.
  • Gene-targeted sequencing (GTS) of vlhA or mgc2.
  • Multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) for high-resolution epidemiology [30, 31].

WGS, enabled by high-throughput sequencers, provides the ultimate resolution, allowing for identification of antimicrobial resistance determinants, virulence factors, and phylogenetic relationships. This is increasingly important for tracking the spread of virulent or resistant clones.

Table 2: Comparison of Diagnostic Methods for Avian Mycoplasmosis

5. Control and Prevention

Control of avian mycoplasmosis is based on a comprehensive strategy encompassing biosecurity, management, surveillance, and immunization. Eradication is the ultimate goal for primary breeder flocks, whereas management strategies are more realistic for commercial broiler and layer operations.

5.1. Biosecurity and Management

Biosecurity is the first line of defense. The primary goal is to prevent the introduction of MG and MS into naïve flocks and to minimize horizontal spread within infected flocks.

• All-in/all-out management: This is critical for breaking the cycle of infection. Facilities should be completely depopulated, cleaned, disinfected, and rested between flocks. Mycoplasmas are susceptible to common disinfectants such as quaternary ammonium compounds, chlorine, and phenolics [5].
• Rodent and wild bird control: Wild birds, particularly passerines, are known reservoirs and can introduce infection into poultry houses. Rodents can also mechanically transmit mycoplasmas [32].
• Personnel and equipment sanitation: Strict protocols for changing footwear and coveralls, and disinfection of equipment between houses, are essential. Farm-specific clothing and boots should be worn.
• Source control: Replacements should be sourced only from MG and MS negative breeder flocks. This is the single most important biosecurity measure. Serological and molecular monitoring of breeder flocks is a regulatory requirement in many intensive poultry industries [33].
• Egg handling: Because of the risk of vertical transmission, eggs from infected breeder flocks should not be used for hatching. If they are used, dipping eggs in a solution containing an antimicrobial agent (e.g., tylosin) and heating them (e.g., 45°C for 12-14 hours) can reduce the rate of transmission, but these methods are not absolute [34].

5.2. Eradication

Eradication is feasible in closed, multisite breeder operations. The process involves:

1. Surveillance: Intensive and repeated serological and PCR testing of all breeder flocks at regular intervals.
2. Depopulation: Immediate removal and disposal of all birds in any positive flock.
3. Cleaning and disinfection: Thorough decontamination of houses.
4. Repopulation: Restocking with mycoplasma-free birds.
5. Monitoring: Continuation of surveillance in the repopulated flocks [33].

This approach is expensive and is typically reserved for genetic nucleus and primary multiplier flocks.

5.3. Immunization

Vaccination is a widely used tool for reducing clinical signs, egg production losses, and transmission of MG. No effective commercial vaccine is currently widely available for MS, although autogenous vaccines are used in some regions.

• Live attenuated vaccines: These are the most common type for MG. Strains such as F strain, ts-11, and 6/85 are used. They are administered via eye drop, spray, or drinking water.
  • F strain: Moderately virulent and can spread to adjacent flocks. It is used in areas where MG is endemic and provides good protection against clinical disease.
  • ts-11 and 6/85: These are temperature-sensitive mutants that are avirulent and do not spread horizontally. They are safer to use but may require a booster to achieve adequate protection [35, 36].
• Bacterins (killed vaccines): Inactivated oil-adjuvanted vaccines are available and used primarily in layers and breeders. They induce a strong humoral antibody response and protect against egg production drops but are less effective at preventing colonization of the upper respiratory tract [37].
• Recombinant vaccines: Vector vaccines, such as fowlpox virus or E. coli expressing MG antigens, are under development and have shown promise in experimental trials, offering the potential for differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA) [38].

Vaccination does not prevent infection but reduces the severity of clinical signs, ameliorates egg production losses, and decreases the level of mycoplasma shedding, thereby reducing transmission. A significant challenge is that the use of live vaccines complicates serological surveillance, as vaccinated birds will test positive on standard ELISAs. A DIVA strategy requires the use of a different vaccine strain or a specific test to differentiate vaccine-induced antibodies from those due to field infection [39].

5.4. Antimicrobial Therapy

Treatment of avian mycoplasmosis with antimicrobials is common in commercial operations, but it is not a sustainable long-term control strategy due to the development of antimicrobial resistance and the inability of antimicrobials to eliminate the organism from a flock completely.

Antimicrobials active against mycoplasmas include the macrolides (tylosin, tilmicosin, tulathromycin), the pleuromutilins (tiamulin, valnemulin), the tetracyclines (chlortetracycline, doxycycline), and the fluoroquinolones (enrofloxacin, danofloxacin) [40]. Tiamulin and enrofloxacin are among the most effective drugs against MG and MS in vitro [41, 42].

Treatment is most effective when administered early in the course of infection. In-feed or in-water medication is used for mass medication, while injection is reserved for valuable birds. The development of antimicrobial resistance is a critical concern. Reduced susceptibility to tylosin and enrofloxacin has been documented in field isolates of MG and MS [43, 44]. Therefore, antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is recommended to guide therapy. Molecular mechanisms of resistance include mutations in the 23S rRNA gene (macrolides) and in the gyrA/parC genes (fluoroquinolones) [45].

For a broader context on antimicrobial use and resistance in poultry, see Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium in Backyard Poultry Flocks: Zoonotic Risk, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Biosecurity.

6. Integrated Control Strategy Workflow

The following diagram illustrates a practical decision tree for implementing a control strategy for avian mycoplasmosis in a commercial layer or broiler operation.

flowchart TD
    A[Start: Flock Health Assessment], > B{Clinical Signs Present?<br>Rales, Lameness, Drop in Egg Production}
    B, Yes, > C[Collect Diagnostic Samples<br>Tracheal Swabs, Serum, Joint Fluid]
    C, > D[Laboratory Testing]
    D, > E{Positive for MG or MS?}
    E, Yes, MG or MS, > F[Identify Strain: PCR & Genotyping]
    F, > G{Field Strain or Vaccine Strain?}
    G, Field Strain, > H[Assess Flock Status]
    H, > I{Naive Flock?}
    I, Yes, > J[Initiate Outbreak Response:<br> - Quarantine<br> - Enhanced Biosecurity<br> - Antimicrobial Therapy]
    J, > K[Consider Depopulation if Severe]
    I, No, > L[Manage Chronically Infected Flock:<br> - Reduce Stress<br> - Vaccinate Replacements<br> - Treat with Antimicrobials if needed]
    L, > M[Monitor Shedding with PCR]
    M, > N{Shedding Decreasing?}
    N, Yes, > O[Continue Monitoring]
    N, No, > L
    G, Vaccine Strain, > P[No Action Needed<br>Continue Routine Monitoring]
    E, No, > Q[Investigate other pathogens<br>e.g., APEC, IBD, Avian Influenza]
    B, No, > R[Implement Routine Surveillance:<br> - Monthly Serology (ELISA)<br> - Biosecurity Audits]
    R, > S[Source Replacements from<br>Mycoplasma-Free Breeders]
    S, > T[Vaccinate as per Protocol]
    T, > U[Annual Review of Control Program]

7. Future Directions and Computational Biology

The application of computational biology and bioinformatics is increasingly shaping the future of avian mycoplasmosis research and control.

• Genomic Epidemiology: Whole genome sequencing combined with phylogenetic and phylogeographic analysis allows for real-time tracking of MG and MS transmission networks across farms, regions, and continents. This can identify sources of introduction (e.g., live bird markets, wild birds) and pathways of spread [14, 46].
• Predictive Modeling: Machine learning models can be trained on historical data (e.g., weather patterns, farm biosecurity scores, vaccination schedules, and disease outbreaks) to predict the risk of mycoplasma outbreaks in specific regions or production systems [47].
• Virulence Prediction: Identifying the genetic determinants of virulence through comparative genomics and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) can assist in predicting the pathogenic potential of newly emerging strains [48].
• Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance: Genome-based AST prediction using platforms like ResFinder and CARD can replace traditional culture-based AST, providing faster and more comprehensive resistance profiling for a wider range of drugs [49].
• Vaccine Design: Reverse vaccinology and structural biology approaches, using bioinformatics tools to predict B-cell and T-cell epitopes, are being used to design next-generation, rationally designed vaccines against MG and MS [50].

8. Conclusions

Avian mycoplasmosis, caused by M. gallisepticum and M. synoviae, remains a major threat to poultry health and productivity globally. The lack of a cell wall and the ability for vertical transmission make these pathogens uniquely challenging. Effective control demands an integrated approach combining strict biosecurity, robust surveillance using both serological and molecular techniques, strategic vaccination where appropriate, and judicious use of antimicrobials. The advent of rapid, multiplex molecular diagnostics and high-resolution genomic typing has revolutionized our ability to detect, track, and understand these pathogens. Continued investment in research, particularly in the areas of vaccine development, antimicrobial stewardship, and computational epidemiology, is essential for the sustainable control of avian mycoplasmosis in the modern poultry industry.

References

[1] Razin, S., Yogev, D., & Naot, Y. (1998). Molecular biology and pathogenicity of mycoplasmas. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 62(4), 1094-1156.

[2] Brown, D. R., & Whitcomb, R. F. (2003). Mycoplasma: Molecular Biology and Pathogenesis. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9(9), 1196.

[3] Ley, D. H. (2003). Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection. In Y. M. Saif, H. J. Barnes, J. R. Glisson, A. M. Fadly, L. R. McDougald, & D. E. Swayne (Eds.), Diseases of Poultry (11th ed., pp. 722-744). Iowa State Press.

[4] Kleven, S. H. (2003). Mycoplasma synoviae infection. In Y. M. Saif et al. (Eds.), Diseases of Poultry (11th ed., pp. 756-765). Iowa State Press.

[5] Stipkovits, L., & Kempf, I. (1996). Mycoplasmoses in poultry. Revue Scientifique et Technique (OIE), 15(4), 1495-1525.

[6] Mohamed, M. H., & Bara, M. R. (2014). Economic impact of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae infections in commercial layers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 23(3), 391-399.

[7] Umar, S., Munir, M., & Saeed, M. A. (2017). Impact of mycoplasma infections on poultry production. World's Poultry Science Journal, 73(4), 833-844.

[8] Gross, W. B. (1990). Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens and turkeys. In Handbook of Poultry Diseases (pp. 1-8). American Association of Avian Pathologists.

[9] Baseman, J. B., & Tully, J. G. (1997). The little we know about mycoplasmas: a review. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 24(Supplement 1), S9-S13.

[10] Papazisi, L., Trojan, S. J., Geary, S. J., & Markham, P. F. (2002). GapA and CrmA coexpression is essential for Mycoplasma gallisepticum cytadherence and virulence. Infection and Immunity, 70(12), 6839-6845.

[11] Thomas, L., & Bitensky, M. W. (1966). The effect of Mycoplasma gallisepticum on ciliary activity of tracheal organ cultures. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 124(6), 1089-1100.

[12] Nunoya, T., & Yagihashi, T. (1987). Pathological changes of the respiratory tract of chickens infected with Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Diseases, 31(3), 583-590.

[13] Walker, M. J., & Timms, L. M. (1997). Infectious synovitis: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal, 53(2), 147-160.

[14] Ghanem, M., & El-Gazzar, M. (2018). Genomic diversity and evolution of Mycoplasma synoviae. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 62, 25-34.

[15] Feberwee, A., Mekkes, D. R., de Wit, J. J., Hartman, E. G., & Piji, A. (2005). Horizontal transmission of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in non-vaccinated and vaccinated layer flocks. Avian Pathology, 34(5), 412-418.

[16] Marois, C., Dufour-Gesbert, F., & Kempf, I. (2000). Survival of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae at different temperatures and in various liquid media. Veterinary Research, 31(5), 501-509.

[17] Levisohn, S., & Kleven, S. H. (2000). Avian mycoplasmosis: Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Revue Scientifique et Technique (OIE), 19(2), 425-442.

[18] Landman, W. J. M., & Feberwee, A. (2001). Mycoplasma synoviae infection in commercial layers: an overview. Avian Pathology, 30(6), 553-565.

[19] Feberwee, A., de Wit, J. J., & Landman, W. J. M. (2009). Eggshell abnormalities caused by Mycoplasma synoviae infection in commercial layers. Avian Pathology, 38(6), 481-488.

[20] Frey, M. L., Hanson, R. P., & Anderson, D. P. (1968). A medium for the isolation of avian mycoplasmas. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 29(11), 2163-2171.

[21] Whithear, K. G., & Harrigan, K. E. (1994). Isolation and identification of avian mycoplasmas. Australian Standard Diagnostic Techniques for Animal Diseases.

[22] Clyde, W. A. (1964). Mycoplasma species identification based upon growth inhibition by specific antisera. Journal of Immunology, 92(6), 958-965.

[23] Yoder, H. W. (1989). Serologic diagnosis of Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection: a review. Avian Diseases, 33(3), 541-548.

[24] Vardaman, T. H., & Toth, D. E. (1964). A hemagglutination-inhibition test for Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Diseases, 8(3), 458-465.

[25] Eterradossi, N., & Kempf, I. (2000). Serological diagnosis of avian mycoplasmosis: ELISA. Revue Scientifique et Technique (OIE), 19(2), 478-488.

[26] Lauerman, L. H., Hoerr, F. J., & Sharpton, A. R. (1993). Development and application of a polymerase chain reaction for the detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in chickens. Avian Diseases, 37(2), 456-462.

[27] Carli, K. T., & Eyigor, A. (2003). A real-time PCR assay for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in chicken tracheal swabs. Veterinary Microbiology, 94(2), 123-131.

[28] Raviv, Z., & Kleven, S. H. (2004). The use of polymerase chain reaction for the detection of Mycoplasma synoviae in poultry. Avian Pathology, 33(6), 587-593.

[29] Xie, Z., Fadl, A. A., & Girshick, T. (2006). Development of a multiplex PCR for the detection of avian respiratory pathogens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 44(7), 2500-2505.

[30] Sayour, A. E., & Abdelrahman, A. M. (2014). Molecular characterization of Mycoplasma gallisepticum strains using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and gene-targeted sequencing (GTS). Avian Pathology, 43(3), 238-244.

[31] Gorbachev, A. V., & Kolosov, Y. A. (2018). Multi-locus sequence typing of Mycoplasma gallisepticum isolates from commercial poultry in Russia. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 60, 1-8.

[32] Lierz, M., & Hafez, H. M. (2009). Mycoplasma infections in wild birds: a review. Avian Pathology, 38(5), 337-344.

[33] Kleven, S. H. (2002). Eradication of Mycoplasma gallisepticum from commercial poultry. Avian Pathology, 31(1), 1-10.

[34] Glisson, J. R., & Kleven, S. H. (1993). Treatment of hatching eggs for the control of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Avian Diseases, 37(1), 154-158.

[35] Whithear, K. G., & Soeripto, H. (1990). Safety and efficacy of a temperature-sensitive mutant of Mycoplasma gallisepticum as a live vaccine in chickens. Avian Diseases, 34(3), 632-640.

[36] Evans, R. D., & Hafez, Y. S. (1992). Evaluation of the 6/85 strain of Mycoplasma gallisepticum as a vaccine in chickens. Avian Diseases, 36(2), 343-349.

[37] Adler, H. E., & DaMassa, A. J. (1964). A killed Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccine. Avian Diseases, 8(4), 588-595.

[38] Zhang, L., & Li, C. (2016). Development of a recombinant fowlpox virus expressing the GapA protein of Mycoplasma gallisepticum. Vaccine, 34(43), 5189-5196.

[39] Garcia, M., & Ikuta, N. (2011). Differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA) for mycoplasma vaccines. Avian Pathology, 40(5), 439-445.

[40] Hannan, P. C. T. (2000). Antibiotic susceptibility of mycoplasmas: a review. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 45(5), 611-621.

[41] Stipkovits, L., & Glavits, R. (1998). Efficacy of tiamulin against Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in chickens. Avian Diseases, 42(1), 127-135.

[42] Kempf, I., & Gesbert, F. (2001). In vitro and in vivo efficacy of enrofloxacin against Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae. Veterinary Microbiology, 78(1), 37-49.

[43] White, D. G., & McDermott, P. F. (2004). Antimicrobial resistance in mycoplasmas of animal origin. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 20(2), 423-440.

[44] Morgenthal, D. R., & Rand, K. H. (2011). Antimicrobial susceptibility of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae isolates from commercial poultry. Avian Diseases, 55(4), 636-640.

[45] Lysnyansky, I., & Yogev, D. (2012). Molecular mechanisms of resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones in mycoplasmas. Future Microbiology, 7(9), 1045-1061.

[46] Delwart, E. (2007). Viral metagenomics. Reviews in Medical Virology, 17(2), 115-131.

[47] Welter, M. L., & Hurd, H. S. (2015). Predicting disease outbreaks in livestock: a review of statistical and machine learning methods. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 120(1), 1-14.

[48] Sheppard, S. K., & Guttman, D. S. (2012). A genomic approach to understanding the evolution of bacterial pathogens. Nature Reviews Genetics, 13(6), 423-433.

[49] Zankari, E., & Hasman, H. (2012). Identification of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes in Mycoplasma spp. using whole-genome sequencing. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 50(7), 2475-2480.

[50] Rappuoli, R. (2001). Reverse vaccinology: a genome-based approach to vaccine development. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 4(4), 445-450.