MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015919720

Vaccine-induced protection against furunculosis in Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus)

2018· article· en· W7015919720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIslandScholar (University of Prince Edward Island) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticAeromonas salmonicidaVaccinationDiseaseImmune systemOutbreakStocking
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) are a salmonid with potential economic growth in Canadian aquaculture. They are native to the Arctic, and have been an important food source for many years. Arctic charr can be sold for a higher price per kilogram than salmon, due to their delicacy status and niche market. For this reason, Arctic charr farming is becoming more popular. Unlike other salmonids, Arctic charr require a high stocking density to keep aggressive behaviours at bay, and thus many intensive culture-related diseases are easily spread among individuals. Currently, little information is available on the Arctic charr immune system, and their disease susceptibility to common culture-related diseases, such as furunculosis. Furunculosis is a septicemic disease caused by Aeromonas salmonicida, which has two forms: typical and atypical. Both of these diseases have the potential to cause mortality and spread quickly within a population. These infections tend to have acute onsets, with chronic conditions only occurring in adult fish. Previous research has been conducted on culturerelated diseases in Arctic charr, although more information is needed to determine what prophylactic measures would work best to prevent such diseases. The objectives of the current thesis were to: (1) determine the efficacy of two commercial salmonids vaccines against furunculosis infections in Arctic charr; (2) to determine the length of protection acquired by these vaccines; and (3) to characterize the immune responses to vaccination and subsequent A. salmonicida infection. </p>\n<p>To answer these questions, an infection trial was designed to determine the Arctic charr immune response to a typical A. salmonicida infection using two different vaccine regimes. Vaccination with the vaccine Forte Micro® (Micro®) showed 72% survival, while vaccination with Forte Micro® + Renogen® (MicroRenogen) showed 83% survival. The presence of A. salmonicida was detected, and results showed significant differences between both vaccinates and a control (Sham -PBS vaccinated) group at 8 days post-infection (dpi) with A. salmonicida. Molecular techniques such as ELISA (Enzyme Linked lmmunosorbent Assay) and RT-qPCR (Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR) were used to examine the immune responses to vaccination, and following challenge with a typical A. salmonicida at 8 and 29 dpi. Strong IgM responses, specific to typical A. salmonicida, were detected at 8 dpi in vaccinated\nfish only. Reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR revealed an emphasis on the acute phase response of innate immunity, and some intracellular responses to vaccination and infection. Co-administering of the vaccines did not negatively impact vaccine efficacy, and could provide a viable option for protection against typical A. salmonicida infections in Arctic charr in aquaculture settings.</p>\n<p>During atypical A. salmonicida infections, Arctic charr were either challenged approximately 2-months or 1- year post-vaccination. The Micro® vaccine provided good protection (88% survival) at 2-months post-vaccination in Arctic charr challenged with atypical A. salmonicida, but only 63% survival when challenged 1-year post-vaccination. The MicroRenogen vaccinated fish showed approximately 80% survival in both challenge trials. When Renogen® was administered alone it provided similar protection as the sham control. Presence of infection was evaluated by the presence/absence of A. salmonicida-specific bacterial growth on blood agar. Positive bacterial growth was found in 25% of fish per treatment group at 10 dpi and 13 dpi (short-term vaccine efficacy and long-term vaccine efficacy, respectively), while no detectable levels of bacterial growth were found at 28 dpi in the long-term vaccine efficacy study, and only one Renogen® fish at 23 dpi in the short-term vaccine efficacy study. Circulating IgM antibody responses to A. salmonicida infection were strongest in Micro® vaccinated fish when challenged 2-months post-vaccination, while overall muted IgM responses were observed when challenged 1-year post-vaccination for all groups. Similar to the typical A. salmonicida infection, Arctic charr showed similar results to the circulating IgM antibody responses, and acute phase and intracellular responses to infection. The Micro® vaccine appeared to provide significant protection when fish were challenged 2- months post-vaccination, but not at 1-year post-vaccination and no apparent negative effects on vaccine efficacy were observed when the Micro® and Renogen® were co-administered.</p>\n<p>Overall, these data demonstrate the protective effects of two vaccination regimes (Micro® and Micro®+ Renogen ) on Arctic charr at different sizes/age classes to challenge with A. salmonicida subspecies. This has provided a better understanding of the Arctic charr immune response to vaccination and A. salmonicida infection. More work should, however, be done to concentrate on the ideal timing for vaccination, to provide the most protection for these fish. Finally, these vaccines can currently be used to manage A. salmonicida infections in Arctic charr culture situations, but further research is required to determine if protection can be enhanced through different vaccination strategies, such as targeting more specific A. salmonicida antigens, or through coordinating vaccination and harvest, to find the ideal time to vaccinate Arctic charr. </p>

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIslandScholar (University of Prince Edward Island)Same topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207