Owing to the problem of antibiotic resistance and subsequent reluctance of using antibiotics, the use of probiotics in larviculture is becoming increasingly popular. During the early stages of development, manipulation of the larval digestive system seems possible through the addition of probiotics either through the culture water or via the livefood. Well-studied probiotics used in human medicine and terrestrial agriculture have proved to be successful in aquaculture and therefore reduce the need for extensive biosafety trials. The selection of probiotics requires various in vitro screening experiments, which assay for the production of antagonist compounds, their growth in and attachment to fish intestinal mucus, and the production of other beneficial compounds such as vitamins, fatty acids and digestive enzymes. Further information regarding probiont suitability can be obtained from its identification, interaction with livefood and host pathogenicity. Finally, pilot-scale in vivo tests need be performed, after which a production cost-benefit analysis to determine its economic viability needs to be undertaken.

Probiotics for aquaculture are generally only selected by their ability to produce antimicrobial metabolites; however, attachment to intestinal mucus is important in order to remain within the gut of its host. Five candidate probiotics (AP1-AP5), isolated from the clownfish, Amphiprion percula (Lacepéde), were examined for their ability to attach to fish intestinal mucus and compete with two pathogens, Aeromonas hydrophila and Vibrio alginolyticus. Two different radioactive isotopes were used to quantify competition between pathogens and probionts. Attachment of the pathogens was enhanced by the presence of the candidate probiotics. However, the addition of the candidate probiotics after the pathogens resulted in reduced pathogen attachment. Only AP5 caused lower attachment success of V. alginolyticus when added before the pathogen. When AP5 was added first, the average attachment change was 41% compared with 72% when added after V. alginolyticus, suggesting that the probiotic is displaced but that enhanced attachment of the pathogen does not occur. Conversely, when V. alginolyticus was added first, followed by AP5, attachment change was 37% while AP5 had 92% attachment change when added second. This implies that the pathogen was displaced by the candidate probiotic and therefore it appeared that, based on the ability of probiont AP5 to attach to mucus, the growth of the pathogen in the digestive tract might be suppressed by the candidate probiont's presence.

The selection of probiotics for aquaculture is usually based on their antagonism towards pathogens. However, other criteria such as growth, attachment to intestinal mucus and production of beneficial compounds should also be considered. We suggest a protocol for the isolation and selection of potential probiotic bacteria based on their in vitro growth characteristics and propose a ranking index (RI) to screen potential aquaculture probionts. We suggest that the lag period and doubling time are the most important criteria for the comparison of growth curves, hence the RI is based on the doubling time (t d ) and lag period (V) obtained from the growth profile of each bacterium. Bacteria were isolated from the gut of the common clownfish, Amphiprion percula, and screened for antagonistic activity towards seven aquatic pathogens. All five candidate probiotics showed antagonism to various aquatic pathogens. When grown in intestinal fish mucus no probiotic had a RI higher than the two tested pathogens (Aeromonas hydrophila and Vibrio alginolyticus). However, candidate probiont AP1 had a faster specific growth rate (W) (0.05) than the pathogens (0.049 and 0.047 respectively), while AP5 grown in marine broth had a shorter lag period than the pathogens. Strategies to increase probiotic concentration include the inoculation of high concentrations and the preconditioning of these bacteria to reduce the lag period. It should be tested whether or not such strategies will allow the probiotic bacteria to dominate initially and thereby gain a competitive advantage. This could become an important aspect under in vivo conditions where both attachment and nutrient supply differ from that found in in vitro studies.

No abstract

No abstract