Transmission potential of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus in APEX-IHN®-vaccinated Atlantic salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) outbreaks have had a significant negative impact on Atlantic salmon Salmo salar production in British Columbia, Canada, since the first outbreak was reported in 1992. In 2005, the APEX-IHN® vaccine was approved for use in Canada for prevention of IHN. The vaccine was proven to be safe and efficacious prior to approval; however, it is unknown as to whether APEX-IHN®-vaccinated Atlantic salmon infected with IHNV can support replication and virus shedding in sufficient quantities to provide an infectious dose to a nearby susceptible host. To determine whether vaccinated, infected fish are able to transmit an infectious dose of IHNV, vaccinated Atlantic salmon were injected with IHNV (104 plaque-forming units per fish) and cohabitated with either naïve Atlantic salmon or naïve sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka. APEX-IHN®-vaccinated fish were significantly protected against IHNV with mortality occurring in only 2.6% of the population as opposed to 97% in unvaccinated controls. Vaccination in IHNV-infected Atlantic salmon completely abolished disease transmission to cohabitating naïve sockeye salmon and reduced virus spread among cohabitating naïve Atlantic salmon. At 7 mo post-vaccination, IHNV-neutralizing antibodies were detected in nearly all vaccinated fish (94%) with similar titer occurring between vaccinated, infected fish and vaccinated, uninfected fish, indicating APEX-IHN® vaccination induces a robust seroconversion response. Taken together, these results demonstrate that vaccination greatly reduces the infectious load and potential for IHNV transmission. As such, APEX-IHN® should be included in fish health management strategies when culturing Atlantic salmon in IHNV endemic areas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".