Efficiency of Indigenous <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> as Biocontrol Agent against <i>Vibrio</i> Infection in Shrimp (<i>Penaeus monodon</i>) Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a biocontrol agent against Vibrio mimicus infection in shrimp ( Penaeus monodon ) culture was evaluated. The antagonistic Pseudomonas sp. Ps2 and Vibrio sp. V1 were previously isolated from healthy and moribund shrimp intestines respectively. The two strains were identified using molecular method. Four-day acute pathogenicity tests were carried out on shrimp ( Penaeus monodon ) postlarvae using different concentrations of the strains. Histopathological examination of the hepatopancreas of the postlarvae was carried out after each pathogenicity test. Probiotic trial of the antagonistic Pseudomonas aeruginosa on culture of shrimp ( Penaeus monodon ) challenged with pathogenic Vibrio mimicus by immersion was carried out for 12 days. Water quality parameters (pH, temperature, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, salinity and dissolved oxygen) were determined during shrimp culture. Molecular analysis conducted on Pseudomonas sp. Ps2 and Vibrio sp. V1 revealed that they are closely related to Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain XyC5 and Vibrio mimicus strain XQ respectively. The use of Pseudomonas aeruginosa had no pathogenicity effect on shrimp since no shrimp mortality was recorded. The LC 50 of Vibrio mimicus was calculated to be 3.2 x 10 4 cfu/ml. Vibrio mimicus addition resulted in 54% mortality and unhealthy hepatopancreas. No addition of bacteria resulted in 22% mortality and healthy hepatopancreas while Pseudomonas aeruginosa plus Vibrio mimicus addition resulted in zero mortality and healthy hepatopancreas. The water quality parameters were within the optimum ranges throughout the culture period. The results suggest that the indigenous antagonistic Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain XyC5 could be beneficial as biological control agent for management of vibriosis in shrimp aquaculture.
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".