Bivalent vaccines for sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) against vibriosis and pasteurellosis

Abstract

The relative degree and duration of protection against Vibrio uriguillarurii and Pasteurellu piscicidu in sea bass vaccinated once by immersion at 1 g was compared with fish vaccinated by immersion at 1 g and revaccinated at 5 g by immersion or intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection. The vaccines used were based on V. anguilluruni (serotype 01) and P. piscicidu. The groups of fish were challenged with both pathogens separately at 7 weeks and 26 weeks post revaccination. Sea bass vaccinated by immersion at I g and again at 5 g by immersion o r injection, demonstrated a significant level of protection against V. aiiguillaruni lasting for 26 weeks post revaccination. Sea bass revaccinated by immersion were significantly protected against P. piscicidu 7 weeks post revaccination compared with nonvaccinated fish. Failure in killing nonvaccinated sea bass during the latter pasteurellosis challenge renders duration of protection against P. piscicida beyond 7 weeks post revaccination as inconclusive. No long-term protection was measured against either pathogen in the fish vaccinated at 1 g.

The efficacy and safety of an oil-based vaccine against Photobacterium damsela subsp. piscicida in yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata): A field study

“…damsela subsp. piscicida vaccine [8]. The duration of protection of this oil-based vaccine was shown to be a minimum of 4 months, as tested in laboratory challenge.…”

“…Studies from other fish species susceptible to pasteurellosis demonstrate that good protection was obtained vaccinating sea bream (Sparus aurata) by injection using a toxoid enriched vaccine, and in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) using an oil-based whole cell vaccine [7,8]. Also Bakopoulos et al [9] showed that sea bass (20 g) benefited from vaccination intraperitoneally by using novel vaccines up to 12 weeks post vaccination.…”

Effectiveness of different vaccine formulations against vibriosis caused by Vibrio vulnificus serovar E (biotype 2) in European eels Anguilla anguilla

“…This method of delivery is quicker, easier, more economical and less stressing than the injection method and could be used in eel culture facilities. Some authors have reported that delivering only 2 doses is enough to achieve similar protec-98 Collado et al: Immunization of eels against Vibrio vulnificus serovar E tion in other fish species (Song et al 1982, Magariños et al 1994, 1999, Gravningen et al 1998, Palm et al 1998.…”

“…The use of vaccines in aquaculture has been shown to successfully protect fish against bacterial diseases, such as vibriosis (caused by Listonella anguillarum [formerly Vibrio anguillarum] and V. ordalii ), edwardsiellosis, furunculosis, streptococcosis and pasteurellosis (Song et al 1982, Austin 1983, Larsen 1988, Smith 1988, Dec et al 1990, Roogers & Xu 1992, Magariños et al 1994, Quentel & Ogier de Baulny 1995, Toranzo et al 1995, Romalde et al 1996, Gravningen et al 1998. In particular, the success achieved in immunization against other vibrioses (Smith 1988) suggests that the best solution would be an effective vaccine against V. vulnificus.…”

Prevention of fish photobacteriosis. Comparison of the efficacy of intraperitoneally administered commercial and experimental vaccines

“…Although there are previous studies on the protection efficacy achieved post-vaccination with monovalent (and bivalent with serotypes I and II) vaccines either against V. anguillarum (Viale et al, 2006;Galeotti et al, 2013) or against Phdp (Magarinos et al, 1994;Magarinos et al, 1994a), information on the protection efficacy when fish are vaccinated with bivalent vaccines against both pathogens Gravningen et al (1998), regarding photobacteriosis]. Protection conferred post-vaccination against V. anguillarum is reportedly effective (Athanassopoulou & Bitchava, 2010;Galeotti et al, 2013).…”