Comparative Clinical Pathology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 977–983 | Cite as

Sero-prevalence and associated risk factors of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infection in Kailali and Kanchanpur District of Far Western, Nepal

  • Narayan Acharya
  • Keshav Bhatta
  • Meera Prajapati
  • Sujan Sapkota
  • Krishna Prasad AcharyaEmail author
Original Article


Respiratory diseases cause severe distress leading to serious effects on production characteristics of pigs. Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (Mh) is one of the primary contributors of porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC). A cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the sero-prevalence and associated risk factors of enzootic pneumonia (EP) caused by Mh in Kailali and Kanchanpur Districts of Nepal. The herd level information of the site was gathered using standardized questionnaire survey. A total of 184 porcine serum samples were collected randomly and tested by using competitive ELISA targeting anti-Mh antibodies. Of the total 184, 42 samples were tested positive resulting overall sero-prevalence of 22.83%. The husbandry practices, modern and semi-conventional, continuous and all-in all-out systems were found as the potential risk factors of EP in pigs. Significantly higher risk was observed in continuous production system (32%) as compared to all-in all-out (11.11%). Likewise, pen partitioning was also found to be associated with increased risk of the disease occurrence. Higher prevalence was observed in pigs in semisolid partition (34.95%) compared to solid partition (18.18%), improved breeds (27.46%) compared to local breeds (7.14%), and highest among growing age group (36.36%) than in the rest of the others. Thus, consideration of environmental and management factors for the prevention EP transmission in commercial pig farms is suggested.


Enzootic pneumonia Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae Sero-prevalence ELISA 



Authors would like to thank participating farmers and staffs of Animal Science Research Division of Nepal Agricultural Research Council.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

All the processes involving animals followed the international guiding principles listed by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences and the international Council for laboratory animals (2012). Nepal has no established system for ethical approval of animal experiments. No animals were harmed during the sample collection.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.


  1. Boonsoongnern A, Jirawattanapong P, Lertwatcharasarakul P, Phatthanakunanan S, Poolperm P, Urairong S, Navasakuljinda W, Urairong K (2012) The prevalence of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in commercial suckling pigs in Thailand. World J Vaccines 02:161–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brockmeier SL, Halbur PG, Thacker EL (2002) Porcine respiratory disease complex. In: Brogden KA, Guthmiller JM (eds) Polymicrobial diseases. ASM Press, Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  3. Browne C, Loeffler A, Holt HR, Chang YM, Lloyd DH, Nevel A (2017) Low temperature and dust favour in vitro survival of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae: time to revisit indirect transmission in pig housing. Lett Appl Microbiol 64:2–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daniel WW (ed) (1999) Biostatistics: a foundation for analysis in the health sciences, 7th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. DoAH (2015) Annual Epidemiological Bulletin. Veterinary Epidemiological Centre, Directorate of Animal Health, Tripureshwor, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  6. Fablet C, Marois-Créhan C, Simon G, Grasland B, Jestin A, Kobisch M, Madec F, Rose N (2012) Infectious agents associated with respiratory diseases in 125 farrow-to-finish pig herds: a cross-sectional study. Vet Microbiol 157:152–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giacomini E, Ferrari N, Pitozzi A, Remistani M, Giardiello D, Maes D, Alborali GL (2016) Dynamics of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae seroconversion and infection in pigs in the three main production systems. Vet Res Commun 40:81–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grosse Beilage E, Rohde N, Krieter J (2009) Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with seropositivity in sows from 67 herds in north-west Germany infected with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae. Prev Vet Med 88:255–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. He Y, Xu MJ, Zhou DH, Zou FC, Lin RQ, Yin CC, He XH, Liang R, Liang M, Zhu XQ (2011) Seroprevalence of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in pigs in subtropical southern China. Trop Anim Health Prod 43:695–698. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lam KM, Switzer WP (1971) Mycoplasmal pneumonia of swine: active and passive immunizations. Am J Vet Res 32:1737–1741Google Scholar
  11. Leon E, Madec F, Taylor N, Kobisch M (2001) Seroepidemiology of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in pigs from farrow-to-finish farms. Vet Microbiol 78:331–341. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu M, Du G, Liu B et al (2017) Cholesterol exacerbates Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae-induced apoptosis via stimulating proliferation and adhesion to porcine alveolar macrophages. Vet Microbiol 211:112–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lysenko N V., Milanko AY, Dubov NS, Zabora NP (1980) Serological survey for porcine enzootic pneumonia in the Ukraine.Vet Kiev, Ukr SSR 18–22Google Scholar
  14. Maes D, Verdonck M, Deluyker H, de Kruif A (1996) Enzootic pneumonia in pigs. Vet Q 18:104–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mattsson JG, Bergström K, Wallgren P, Johansson KE (1995) Detection of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in nose swabs from pigs by in vitro amplification of the 16S rRNA gene. J Clin Microbiol 33:893–897 0095–1137/95/$04.00?0Google Scholar
  16. Naing L, Winn T, Rusli BN (2006) Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Arch Orofac Sci 1:9–14Google Scholar
  17. Nathues H, Woeste H, Doehring S, Fahrion AS, Doherr MG, Beilage E (2013) Herd specific risk factors for Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infections in suckling pigs at the age of weaning. Acta Vet Scand 55:30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nathues H, Chang YM, Wieland B, Rechter G, Spergser J, Rosengarten R, Kreienbrock L, grosse Beilage E (2014) Herd-level risk factors for the seropositivity to Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and the occurrence of enzootic pneumonia among fattening pigs in areas of endemic infection and high pig density. Transbound Emerg Dis 61:316–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neto JCG, Strait EL, Raymond M, Ramirez A, Minion FC (2014) Antibody responses of swine following infection with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, M. hyorhinis, M. hyosynoviae and M. flocculare. Vet Microbiol 174:163–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Otake S, Dee S, Corzo C, Oliveira S, Deen J (2010) Long-distance airborne transport of infectious PRRSV and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae from a swine population infected with multiple viral variants. Vet Microbiol 145:198–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prokeš M, Zendulková D, Rosenbergová K, Treml F, Ondrejková A, Beníšek Z, Ondrejka R, Korytár Ľ, Slepecká E, Süli J, Haladová E, Maženský D (2012) Detection of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae by ELISA and nested PCR from blood samples and nasal swabs from pigs in Slovakia. Acta Vet Brno 81:327–331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Qiu G, Rui Y, Li K, Huang S, Han Z, Wang X, Jiang W, Luo H, Lan Y, Li J (2017) Detection and phylogenetic analysis of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae from Tibetan pigs in western China. Trop Anim Health Prod 49:1545–1551. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sibila M, Calsamiglia M, Vidal D et al (2004) Dynamics on Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infection in 12 farms with different production systems. Can J Vet Res 68:12–18Google Scholar
  24. Sibila M, Nofrarías M, López-Soria S, Segalés J, Riera P, Llopart D, Calsamiglia M (2007) Exploratory field study on Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infection in suckling pigs. Vet Microbiol 121:352–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sibila M, Pieters M, Molitor T, Maes D, Haesebrouck F, Segalés J (2009) Current perspectives on the diagnosis and epidemiology of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infection. Vet J 181:221–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Straw B, Tuovinen V, Bigras-Poulin M (1989) Estimation of the cost of pneumonia in swine herds. J Am Vet Med Assoc 195:1702–1706Google Scholar
  27. Thacker EL (2004) Diagnosis of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae. Anim Health Res Rev 5:317–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thacker EL, Minion CF (2010) Mycoplasmosis. In: Zimmerman JJ, Karriker LA, Ramirez A, et al. (eds) Diseases of swine, 10th edn. Wiley, pp 779–797Google Scholar
  29. Thacker EL, Halbur PG, Ross RF et al (1999) Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae potentiation of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus-induced pneumonia. J Clin Microbiol 37:620–627Google Scholar
  30. Villarreal I, Vranckx K, Duchateau L, Pasmans F, Haesebrouck F, Jensen JC, Nanjiani IA, Maes D (2010) Early Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infections in European suckling pigs in herds with respiratory problems: detection rate and risk factors. Vet Med (Praha) 55:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xiao-min F, Wei-min Z, Yan-feng F et al (2015) Difference in susceptibility to mycoplasma pneumonia among various pig breeds and its molecular genetic basis. Sci Agric Sin 48:2839–2847. Google Scholar
  32. Yagihashi T, Kazama S, Tajima M (1993) Seroepidemiology of mycoplasmal pneumonia of swine in Japan as surveyed by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Vet Microbiol 34:155–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang N-Z, Zhou D-H, Shi X-C et al (2013) African journal of microbiology research first report of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae sero-prevalence in Tibetan pigs in Tibet, China. Afr J Microbiol Res 7:1735–1738. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.District Livestock Service Office (DLSO)JumlaNepal
  3. 3.Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC)KathmanduNepal
  4. 4.Agriculture and Forestry UniversityRampurNepal
  5. 5.Regional Veterinary LaboratoryPokharaNepal

Personalised recommendations