MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183791732 · doi:10.3390/vaccines9080819

Oral Immunization of Larvae and Juvenile of Lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) against Vibrio anguillarum Does Not Influence Systemic Immunity

2021· article· en· W3183791732 on OpenAlexafffund
My Dang, Trung Cao, Ignacio Vásquez, Ahmed Hossain, Hajarooba Gnanagobal, Surendra Kumar, Jennifer R. Hall, Jennifer Monk, Danny Boyce, Jillian D. Westcott, Javier Santander

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccines · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersOcean Frontier InstituteCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVibrio anguillarumImmune systemImmunizationBiologyImmunityMicrobiologyLepeophtheirusAquacultureImmunologyFisheryVibrioFish <Actinopterygii>Bacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vibrio anguillarum, a marine bacterial pathogen that causes vibriosis, is a recurrent pathogen of lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus). Lumpfish is utilized as a cleaner fish in the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) aquaculture in the North Atlantic region because of its ability to visualize and prey on the ectoparasite sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) on the skin of Atlantic salmon, and its performance in cold environments. Lumpfish immunity is critical for optimal performance and sea lice removal. Oral vaccine delivery at a young age is the desired method for fish immunization because is easy to use, reduces fish stress during immunization, and can be applied on a large scale while the fish are at a young age. However, the efficacy of orally delivered inactivated vaccines is controversial. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a V. anguillarum bacterin orally delivered to cultured lumpfish and contrasted it to an intraperitoneal (i.p.) boost delivery. We bio-encapsulated V. anguillarum bacterin in Artemia salina live-feed and orally immunized lumpfish larvae. Vaccine intake and immune response were evaluated by microscopy and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis, respectively. qPCR analyses showed that the oral immunization of lumpfish larvae resulted in a subtle stimulation of canonical immune transcripts such as il8b, il10, igha, ighmc, ighb, ccl19, ccl20, cd8a, cd74, ifng, and lgp2. Nine months after oral immunization, one group was orally boosted, and a second group was both orally and i.p. boosted. Two months after boost immunization, lumpfish were challenged with V. anguillarum (7.8 × 105 CFU dose−1). Orally boosted fish showed a relative percentage of survival (RPS) of 2%. In contrast, the oral and i.p. boosted group showed a RPS of 75.5% (p &lt; 0.0001). V. anguillarum bacterin that had been orally delivered was not effective in lumpfish, which is in contrast to the i.p. delivered bacterin that protected the lumpfish against vibriosis. This suggests that orally administered V. anguillarum bacterin did not reach the deep lymphoid tissues, either in the larvae or juvenile fish, therefore oral immunization was not effective. Oral vaccines that are capable of crossing the epithelium and reach deep lymphoid tissues are required to confer an effective protection to lumpfish against V. anguillarum

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccinesSame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207