Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Poultry: Diagnostic Challenges and Control Strategies

Introduction

Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) is a wall-less, cell-associated bacterium belonging to the class Mollicutes and is the primary etiological agent of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) in chickens and infectious sinusitis in turkeys [1, 2]. The organism colonizes the respiratory epithelium, leading to ciliostasis, mucosal inflammation, and secondary bacterial invasions that exacerbate clinical signs [3, 4]. MG infection results in substantial economic losses through reduced egg production, decreased feed conversion efficiency, increased embryo mortality, and carcass condemnation at processing [2, 5]. The pathogen is transmitted both horizontally via aerosol and direct contact and vertically through the embryonated egg, making eradication particularly challenging in multi-age and breeder operations [6, 2].

The diagnostic landscape for MG has evolved from classical culture and serology to include highly sensitive molecular assays. However, each diagnostic modality presents specific limitations in sensitivity, specificity, turnaround time, and cost. This review provides a technical examination of current diagnostic approaches, the economic burden of MG, and evidence-based control strategies including biosecurity, vaccination, and antimicrobial stewardship.

Diagnostic Modalities for Mycoplasma gallisepticum

Conventional Culture and Isolation

Isolation of MG requires specialized media such as modified Frey's medium supplemented with 10-15% swine serum, yeast extract, glucose, and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) [4, 7]. The organism produces characteristic "fried egg" colonies on solid media after 3-10 days of microaerophilic incubation at 37 degrees Celsius. Culture is considered the gold standard for definitive diagnosis but suffers from low sensitivity (approximately 34.5% in some studies) due to the fastidious nature of the organism, overgrowth by faster-growing contaminants, and the inhibitory effects of prior antimicrobial therapy [7]. Furthermore, culture requires viable organisms, which are often compromised during sample transport and storage.

Serological Methods

Serological testing remains widely used for flock-level screening due to its low cost and high throughput. The three principal serological platforms are the rapid serum agglutination (RSA) test, the hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay, and the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [8, 9, 10].

The RSA test is a simple, rapid slide agglutination test using stained MG antigen. It is highly sensitive for detecting acute infections but yields false positives due to cross-reactivity with Mycoplasma synoviae (MS) and non-specific agglutinins, particularly in vaccinated flocks [8, 10]. The HI assay is more specific and is often used as a confirmatory test following RSA screening. However, HI is labor-intensive and requires fresh red blood cells and standardized antigen.

ELISA has become the serological method of choice for large-scale surveillance. Commercial ELISA kits detect antibodies against MG with high sensitivity and specificity, and they allow quantitative comparison of antibody titers across flocks [11, 8, 10]. In-house ELISA systems using whole-cell or sonicated MG antigens have shown high correlation with commercial kits, with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.90 in some studies [11]. However, serology cannot distinguish between antibodies induced by natural infection and those resulting from vaccination, and it has limited utility in detecting early infections due to the lag period (7-14 days) required for seroconversion [8].

Molecular Diagnostics

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and its variants have become the cornerstone of MG diagnosis due to their high sensitivity, specificity, and rapid turnaround time. Conventional PCR targeting the mgc2 gene (encoding a cytadhesin-related protein) or the 16S rRNA gene can detect as few as 10-100 genome copies per reaction [12, 7]. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) offers the additional advantages of quantification and reduced risk of amplicon contamination through closed-tube detection [13, 7].

A comparative study of diagnostic schemes found that qRT-PCR performed on cultured broth yielded the highest positivity rate (89.0%), followed by qRT-PCR directly from swabs (76.4%), while conventional culture detected only 34.5% of positive samples [7]. The mgc2 and mraW genes demonstrated the highest detection rates among six housekeeping genes evaluated, making them optimal targets for molecular surveillance [7].

Duplex and multiplex PCR assays have been developed for simultaneous detection and differentiation of MG and MS. A validated duplex PCR targeting mgc2 (150 bp amplicon) and vlhA (787 bp amplicon) showed 74.3% positivity for MG in field samples with perfect agreement (kappa = 0.90) compared to singleplex PCR [12]. These multiplex approaches reduce reagent costs and turnaround time while providing differential diagnosis essential for appropriate control measures.

Emerging Diagnostic Technologies

Recent advances have produced field-deployable molecular platforms that combine recombinase-aided amplification (RAA) with CRISPR/Cas12a technology for MG detection [14]. This dual-mode assay targets conserved regions of the mgc2 gene and achieves a detection limit of 2 copies per microliter with 100% specificity against seven other common avian pathogens. Results can be visualized within one hour using either fluorescence or lateral flow dipstick formats, making the assay suitable for on-farm surveillance [14]. Clinical validation demonstrated complete concordance with qPCR results, and epidemiological application revealed the highest MG positivity rates in chickens compared to ducks and pigeons in a regional survey [14].

Lateral flow assays (LFAs) for MG antibody detection have also been developed. One study reported an in-house LFA with 77.5% sensitivity and 92% specificity compared to PCR, offering a rapid, instrument-free screening tool for field use [11]. However, the lower sensitivity limits its utility as a standalone diagnostic test.

The following table summarizes the key performance characteristics of major diagnostic methods for MG.

Economic Impact of Mycoplasma gallisepticum

The economic consequences of MG infection in poultry operations are multifaceted and substantial. In layer flocks, MG infection can reduce egg production by 10-20% and increase the number of downgraded eggs [2, 15]. In broiler flocks, the primary losses arise from reduced weight gain, impaired feed conversion efficiency, increased mortality, and condemnation of carcasses at slaughter due to airsacculitis [2]. Breeder flocks experience reduced hatchability and increased embryo mortality, which perpetuates vertical transmission to progeny [2].

A systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the pooled global molecular occurrence of MG at 27.0% (95% CI: 20.4-34.2), with regional variation ranging from 12.5% in European commercial flocks to over 50% in South Asian and African countries [5]. The high prevalence in layers and breeders (31.2%) compared to broilers reflects the longer lifespan of these birds and the cumulative risk of horizontal transmission [5]. The economic burden is compounded by the costs of antimicrobial treatment, vaccination programs, and diagnostic monitoring.

Control Strategies

Biosecurity

Biosecurity remains the first line of defense against MG introduction and spread. Risk factor analyses have identified several management practices that significantly reduce the odds of MG positivity. A study of small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada, found that the odds of MG were significantly higher in flocks that housed multiple species or types of birds together, that did not isolate new birds for at least two weeks, and that contained long-lived birds such as layers [6]. Concrete flooring, distance greater than 1000 meters from neighboring farms, regular use of disinfectants, rodent control, visitor restriction, adequate ventilation, and regular cleaning of waterers and feeders were all associated with reduced MG seroprevalence [9].

Hatchery sanitation is critical for breaking the vertical transmission cycle. Electrostatic disinfection and cold fog disinfection using acidic electrochemically stimulated water have demonstrated significant bactericidal effects against MG on hatching eggs without compromising hatchability [16]. Electrostatic disinfection reduced embryonic mortality from 18% in untreated controls to 10%, while cold fog disinfection reduced mortality to 13% [16].

Vaccination

Vaccination is widely employed to control MG in commercial poultry, particularly in multi-age layer complexes where eradication is impractical. Three types of vaccines are commercially available: live attenuated vaccines (F strain, ts-11, and 6/85), inactivated bacterins, and recombinant live poxvirus-vectored vaccines [17, 2, 10].

The F strain vaccine is highly immunogenic and provides strong protection against respiratory lesions, but it retains residual pathogenicity and can spread to unvaccinated birds. The ts-11 and 6/85 strains are more attenuated and are preferred for use in flocks where vaccine shedding must be minimized [10]. A critical review of vaccine efficacy studies found that measurement of tracheal mucosal thickness (TMT) is a more discriminative and reproducible parameter for assessing vaccine protection than gross air sac lesion scores [3, 17]. TMT-based assessments detected 80% or greater effectiveness of challenge with significantly fewer biological replicates compared to air sac lesion scoring, supporting the use of TMT as the primary outcome variable in vaccine efficacy trials [17].

Antimicrobial Therapy and Resistance

Antimicrobial therapy has historically been used to reduce clinical signs and limit transmission, but its efficacy is increasingly compromised by resistance. Macrolides (tylosin, tilmicosin) and tetracyclines (doxycycline, oxytetracycline) are the most commonly used classes [18, 19]. A study of 64 field isolates from poultry found high resistance rates to tilmicosin (87.5%) and tylosin (68.75%), while doxycycline and oxytetracycline retained greater activity [18]. The emergence of macrolide resistance is particularly concerning given that these drugs are often the first-line treatment for mycoplasmosis.

Alternative antimicrobial strategies are under investigation. Spirulina platensis extract demonstrated in vitro antimicrobial activity against macrolide-resistant MG isolates, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) ranging from 3.9 to 1000 micrograms per milliliter; 65% of isolates were inhibited at 250 micrograms per milliliter or lower [18]. The extract showed no cytotoxicity up to 4000 micrograms per milliliter, yielding a selectivity index of 512.8, and correlation analyses indicated a distinct mechanism of action from conventional antibiotics [18]. Chinese herbal medicine formulations, including Radix Isatidis mixtures, have also shown multi-pathway, multi-target effects against MG and Escherichia coli co-infection in poultry, modulating expression of MMP2, TLR4, and neurotransmitter metabolites [20, 21].

Integrated Control Decision Framework

The following Mermaid diagram presents a decision framework for integrated MG diagnosis and control in poultry flocks.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical Signs: Respiratory distress, sinusitis, egg drop], > B{Initial Flock Screening}
    B, > C[RSA or ELISA Serology]
    B, > D[Pooled Tracheal Swab qPCR]
    C, > E{Seropositive?}
    D, > F{Molecular Positive?}
    E, >|Yes| G[Confirm with HI or Species-Specific PCR]
    E, >|No| H[Monitor; Re-test in 2-4 weeks]
    F, >|Yes| G
    F, >|No| H
    G, > I{Infection Confirmed?}
    I, >|Yes| J[Assess Flock Type and Production Stage]
    I, >|No| H
    J, > K[Layer/Breeder Flock]
    J, > L[Broiler Flock]
    K, > M[Implement Vaccination Program]
    K, > N[Enhance Biosecurity: Isolation, Disinfection, Rodent Control]
    K, > O[Antimicrobial Therapy if Clinically Affected]
    L, > P[Depopulation and All-In/All-Out Management]
    L, > Q[Antimicrobial Therapy if Slaughter Interval Permits]
    M, > R[Monitor Vaccine Take: Serology + PCR at 4-6 Weeks Post-Vaccination]
    N, > R
    O, > R
    P, > S[Thorough Cleaning and Disinfection; Downtime]
    Q, > S
    R, > T{Effective Control?}
    S, > T
    T, >|Yes| U[Continue Surveillance Program]
    T, >|No| V[Investigate Vaccine Strain or Antimicrobial Resistance]
    V, > W[Adjust Vaccine Strain or Antimicrobial Based on Susceptibility Testing]
    W, > R

Conclusions

Mycoplasma gallisepticum remains a formidable pathogen in global poultry production, requiring a multi-faceted approach to diagnosis and control. Molecular diagnostics, particularly real-time PCR and emerging CRISPR-based platforms, offer superior sensitivity and speed compared to culture and serology, enabling early detection and informed intervention. Serological methods retain value for flock-level surveillance but cannot distinguish vaccinated from infected birds. The economic impact of MG is driven by production losses in layers, broilers, and breeders, with global prevalence estimates approaching 27% at the individual bird level.

Control strategies must integrate rigorous biosecurity, strategic vaccination using live attenuated or inactivated vaccines, and judicious antimicrobial use guided by susceptibility testing. The growing threat of macrolide resistance underscores the need for alternative therapeutic approaches, including natural antimicrobials and herbal formulations. Standardization of vaccine efficacy assessment using tracheal mucosal thickness measurements will improve the reproducibility of vaccine trials and support the development of more effective immunogens. Continued investment in field-deployable diagnostics and genomic surveillance will be essential for tracking strain diversity and resistance patterns, ultimately supporting the sustainability of poultry production systems worldwide.

References

[1] Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Chronic Respiratory Disease in Poultry: A Comprehensive Review. Al-Qadisiyah Journal of Veterinary Medicine Sciences. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cc4c0f68ea50e5b688e8452aa91a2ac1f6d9cb62

[2] Yadav J, Tomar P, Singh Y, et al. Insights on Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae infection in poultry: a systematic review. Animal Biotechnology. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b1708d1c5802c0812b783e3f2d42a9980d0782b7

[3] Kulappu Arachchige SN, Underwood G, Andrews DM, et al. Measures of tracheal lesions are more discriminatory and reproducible indications of chronic respiratory disease caused by Mycoplasma gallisepticum in poultry. Avian Pathology. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad34dea10768139af4fdad9d2c4556d5304de5f9

[4] Farooq S. Biological Characterization of Locally Circulating Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Poultry. Pakistan Veterinary Journal. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7957a2c768bb3843798c6abb6084542be9582bd4

[5] Chaidez-Ibarra MA, Velazquez D, Enriquez-Verdugo I, et al. Pooled molecular occurrence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in poultry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a337456e4f36305d3ba41d5d1c4f82e6629f4f13

[6] Pijal B, Susta L, Varga C, et al. Demographic, Husbandry, and Biosecurity-related Risk Factors for Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Small Poultry Flocks in Ontario, Canada. Rural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ba3f9074735276c5a0dae58c8d2e67a75324ac7f

[7] Al-baqir A, Hassanin O, Al-Rasheed M, et al. Mycoplasmosis in Poultry: An Evaluation of Diagnostic Schemes and Molecular Analysis of Egyptian Mycoplasma gallisepticum Strains. Pathogens. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/098bfa397424e8b2489c673dc72c549de1682525

[8] Amorim MMR, Bandeira RP, Clemente SM, et al. Serological and Molecular Diagnosis of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in Poultry Farms. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cb84cedbb1286df8f933bfa2533d4e2b90929f5d

[9] Meher M, Bayazid A, Harun A, et al. Seroprevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) infection in poultry and impact of biosecurity practices. Veterinary Integrative Sciences. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10cc2e8ceece7477c5e8778fb47f381388606f40

[10] Correzola LM, Buchala FG, Vitagliano SMM, et al. SEROLOGICAL RESPONSE OF COMMERCIAL LAYING HENS TO Mycoplasma gallisepticum IN POULTRY FARMS IN SÃO PAULO STATE. Ars Veterinaria. 2012. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/32df1afffd66f4e5cdef2028e5a7d036ddf616c3

[11] Elyazeed H, Al-Atfeehy NM, Abotaleb R, et al. Preparation of ELISA and Lateral Flow Kits for rapid Diagnosis of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Poultry. Scientific Reports. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bd2b4d1efd4c2f4c04a1ae3bb9854781629e5eeb

[12] Kannaki T, Priyanka E. Development and Validation of Duplex PCR Assay for Simultaneous Detection and Differentiation of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in Poultry. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/42e3fbc2c725098588b945f4d8c7577066183738

[13] Yadav JP, Batra K, Singh Y, et al. Comparative study on conventional and real-time PCR assays for rapid and specific detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in poultry. The Microbe. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/86bd7cdd713c8187b6069811c19a340e4413cd6f

[14] Hu Q, Zhang R, Liu J, et al. A rapid and field-deployable RAA-CRISPR/Cas12a platform for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in poultry. BMC Veterinary Research. 2026. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/55dc9f7abdfa87b2055d797b99baa83b966bea6b

[15] Hassan S. Studies on Prevalence and Control of Mycoplasma Gallisepticum in Poultry. 2014. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ced6e6ee45527e8c54bf3df1d07203558f97a6b5

[16] Kamal MA, Kaoud H, Salem H, et al. Revolutionizing poultry hygiene: advanced electrostatic and cold fog disinfection strategies combat Mycoplasma gallisepticum in hatching eggs. Poultry Science. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7fc8923b44914d97a37c7615cb496ded4d79c290

[17] Kulappu Arachchige SN, Abeykoon A, Stevenson MA, et al. Assessment of tracheal mucosal thicknesses is a preferable method for evaluation of the immunogenicity of Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccines in poultry. Vaccine. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c390818d274c34c98221057e882f27a3dc1e9ad7

[18] Zidi S, Khadraoui N, Essid R, et al. Spirulina platensis as a novel natural antimicrobial against macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma gallisepticum in poultry. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2026. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/30e0422bfd773dd95862d59a0bbfbf640a5eea5e

[19] Morrow CJ, Achari RA, Charles M, et al. Mycoplasma, antibiotics in lay, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Poultry Science. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42139894/

[20] Jin X, Huo J, Yao Y, et al. A multi-dimensional validation strategy of pharmacological effects of Radix Isatidis Mixtures against the co-infection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Escherichia coli in poultry. Poultry Science. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0d7d9adeb2037c18cd36f857ed5d9a1529ed2f72

[21] Yan Y, Liao L, Fan Y, et al. Evaluation and Analysis of the Efficacy of Four Chinese Herbal Medicines and Formulations in Preventing and Treating Mycoplasma gallisepticum Infection in Chickens. Veterinary Journal. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42191062/

[22] Abbas N, Suleman M, Khan NA, et al. Prevalence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Poultry and Wild Life Birds Suspected of Chronic Respiratory Disease in Northern Pakistan. 2018. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6d3507fa6f1c9c589d44b94772d28dff343c7679

[23] Ardiçli Ö, Serim Kanar T, Kahya Demirbilek S, et al. Co-infection of S1 mutants of 4/91-like Infectious Bronchitis Virus with Mycoplasma gallisepticum in backyard poultry flock with a respiratory problem. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c4005857ea27fc56cdbd7a9d5977d791d438061b

[24] Galluzzo P, Migliore S, Galuppo L, et al. First Molecular Survey to Detect Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in Poultry Farms in a Strategic Production District of Sicily (South-Italy). Animals. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e1dd0cb81d5915eb3d0e6fd6a863ed1aa14a2af4

[25] Welchman D. Adenovirus in chickens; Mycoplasma gallisepticum in poultry; gamebird mortality. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/920b2fbdae3f18a1a1dbd566999f3c7e640047b2

[26] Muhammad J, Rabbani M, Sheikh A, et al. Molecular detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in different poultry breeds of Abbottabad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ecb59972d047aac6d5759300819dbd0ee9b04575

[27] Shiferaw J, Shifara F, Tefera M, et al. Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Mycoplasma gallisepticum Infection in Poultry Farms of Hawasa and Bishoftu, Central Ethiopia. Veterinary Medicine. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/53bb7e6300c9ea6c2c96629c962dbe1b320fb11a

[28] Rodrigo CH, Kulappu Arachchige SN, Bushell RN, et al. Complex pathogen interactions in upper respiratory tract infections in commercial free-range layers: A cross-sectional study. Veterinary Microbiology. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42190304/

[29] Fan P, Liu Z, Xu Y, et al. Strain-specific detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum: A duplex qPCR assay for vaccine efficacy and infection surveillance. Poultry Science. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42139893/

[30] Adelman JS, Henschen AE, Tillman FE Jr, et al. The devil you know: a longer history of pathogen coevolution predicts higher behavioural tolerance of infection among host populations. Biology Letters. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42124517/