Coinfection of tilapia lake virus and Aeromonas hydrophila synergistically increased mortality and worsened the disease severity in tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)

Nicholson, Pamela; Mon-on, Natthawadee; Jaemwimol, Phitchaya; Tattiyapong, Puntanat; Surachetpong, Win

doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734746

Cited by 83 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, natural coinfections of TiLV and other pathogens were reported in previous disease outbreaks in Malaysia and Thailand (Amal et al., 2018; Surachetpong et al., 2017). In an experimental coinfection challenge model among tilapia, Nicholson, Jaemwimol, Tattiyapong, and Surachetpong (2020) described the synergistic effects of TiLV and Aeromonas hydrophila resulting in higher mortality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two‐year surveillance of tilapia lake virus (TiLV) reveals its wide circulation in tilapia farms and hatcheries from multiple districts of Bangladesh

Debnath

Delamare-Deboutteville

Jansen

et al. 2020

Journal of Fish Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tilapia lake virus (TiLV) is an emerging pathogen in aquaculture, reportedly affecting farmed tilapia in 16 countries across multiple continents. Following an early warning in 2017 that TiLV might be widespread, we executed a surveillance programme on tilapia grow-out farms and hatcheries from 10 districts of Bangladesh in 2017 and 2019. Among farms experiencing unusual mortality, eight out of 11 farms tested positive for TiLV in 2017, and two out of seven tested positive in 2019. Investigation of asymptomatic broodstock collected from 16 tilapia hatcheries revealed that six hatcheries tested positive for TiLV. Representative samples subjected to histopathology confirmed pathognomonic lesions of syncytial hepatitis. We recovered three complete genomes of TiLV from infected fish, one from 2017 and two from 2019. Phylogenetic analyses based on both the concatenated coding sequences of 10 segments and only segment 1 consistently revealed that Bangladeshi TiLV isolates formed a unique cluster within Thai clade, suggesting a close genetic relation. In summary, this study revealed the circulation of TiLV in 10 farms and six hatcheries located in eight districts of Bangladesh. We recommend continuing TiLV-targeted Tilapia, which comprises more than 100 species, is the second-most important group of farmed fish worldwide, after carp, and is considered to be among the most significant fish species to meet the rising global demand for protein, vitamin and mineral sources (Amal et al., 2018; Ng & Romano, 2013). Tilapia is farmed in over 135 countries, with global production estimated at 6.5 million metric tons (MMT) (FAO, 2017a). In 2015, the top four producers were China (1.78 MMT), Indonesia (1.11 MMT), Egypt (0.88 MMT) and Bangladesh (0.32 MMT) (FAO, 2017a). Overall, Bangladesh ranks fifth in the world in aquaculture production (FAO, 2017a) and has a total annual fisheries production of 41.34 MMT, of which aquaculture contributes 56.44% (DOF, 2018). The country earns a significant amount of foreign exchange through exporting fish, shrimps and other aquatic animal products from the fisheries sector. In 2017-2018, Bangladesh earned USD 513 million by exporting nearly 68,940 t of fish and fishery products (DOF, 2018). For the last 10 years, the annual growth of the aquaculture sector averaged 5.43% (DOF, 2018). Moreover, tilapia makes up 10.62% of total production and ranks second in the country, after channel catfish (DoF, 2018). Shortly after the first report of a novel disease among tilapia in Ecuador (Ferguson et al., 2014), tilapia lake virus (TiLV) was discovered as a newly emerging virus that caused mass die-offs in tilapia in Israel (Eyngor et al., 2014). Molecular analyses indicated that the same virus, TiLV, was the causative agent of these unusual mortality events in

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two‐year surveillance of tilapia lake virus (TiLV) reveals its wide circulation in tilapia farms and hatcheries from multiple districts of Bangladesh

Debnath

Delamare-Deboutteville

Jansen

et al. 2020

Journal of Fish Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous cases of TiLV with bacterial co‐infections were reported in several tilapia species (Amal et al, 2018; Nicholson et al, 2017, 2019).…”

Section: The Co‐infections In Tilapia: Types and Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, a synergistic natural co‐infection between TiLV and A. hydrophila has been reported, which has not only increased the mortality in Nile tilapia and red hybrid tilapia ( Oreochromis spp.) but also worsened the disease severity (Nicholson et al, 2019). About 31% of the examined fish were found to be infected with both TiLV and A. hydrophila .…”

Section: The Co‐infections In Tilapia: Types and Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Synergistic interactions between TiLV and other bacterial pathogens worsen the disease in tilapia and caused increased mortalities. The accurate pathogenic mechanism of this interaction was not yet clearly understood until now, but it has been suggested that primary TiLV infection caused a weakening in the fish immune system, leading to increased susceptibility to the secondary infection by A. hydrophila (Nicholson et al, 2019). In such a case, the bacteria cannot be cleared by the host immunity and this gives it a chance to proliferate rapidly due to the failure of the antibacterial immune response.…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Synergistic Co‐infectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several instances of natural concurrent infections with different pathogens have already been reported in various tilapia species (Amal et al, 2018; Cutuli et al, 2015; Dong et al, 2015; Eissa, Tharwat, & Zaki, 2013; Eissa, Zaki, & Aziz, 2010; Nicholson et al, 2017; Nicholson, Mon‐on, Jaemwimol, Tattiyapong, & Surachetpong, 2019; Nofal & Abdel‐Latif, 2017; Ramírez‐Paredes et al, 2019). In addition, numerous dual‐infection studies have been conducted in order to evaluate the link between the two co‐infecting pathogens under laboratory conditions (Xu, Shoemaker, & Klesius, 2007, 2009; Xu, Shoemaker, & LaFrentz, 2014; Xu, Shoemaker, & Zhang, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The nature and consequences of co‐infections in tilapia: A review

Abdel‐Latif

Dawood

Menanteau–Ledouble

et al. 2020

Journal of Fish Diseases

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co‐infections commonly arise when two or multiple different pathogens infect the same host, either as simultaneous or as secondary concurrent infection. This potentiates their pathogenic effects and leads to serious negative consequences on the exposed host. Numerous studies on the occurrence of the bacterial, parasitic, fungal and viral co‐infections were conducted in various tilapia species. Co‐infections have been associated with serious negative impacts on susceptible fish because they increase the fish susceptibility to diseases and the likelihood of outbreaks in the affected fish. Co‐infections can alter the disease course and increase the severity of disease through synergistic and, more rarely, antagonistic interactions. In this review, reports on the synergistic co‐infections and their impacts on the affected tilapia species are highlighted. Additionally, their pathogenic mechanisms are briefly discussed. Tilapia producers should be aware of the possible occurrence of co‐infections and their effects on the affected tilapia species and in particular of the clinical signs and course of the disease. To date, there is still limited information regarding the pathogenicity mechanisms and pathogen interactions during these co‐infections. This is generally due to low awareness regarding co‐infections, and in many cases, a dominant pathogen is perceived to be of vital importance and hence becomes the target of treatment while the treatment of the co‐infectious agents is neglected. This review article aimed at raising awareness regarding co‐infections and helping researchers and fish health specialists pay greater attention to these natural cases, leading to increased research and more consistent diagnosis of co‐infectious outbreaks in order to improve control strategies to protect tilapia when infected with multiple pathogens.

show abstract

Potential of Pseudomonas putida probiotic feed mixture for improving growth, immune response, and disease resistance in Nile Tilapia compared to Saccharomyces cerevisiae probiotic

Aly,

ElBanna,

Elatta

et al. 2023

N American J Aquac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the effects of a potential probiotic feed mixture containing Pseudomonas putida, in comparison to a yeast product (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), on the growth, immune response, and protection against Aeromonas hydrophila infection in Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus.MethodsNile Tilapia were divided into three groups and subjected to a 60‐day feeding regimen: the first group served as a control, receiving a commercial diet; the second group received a basal diet mixed with 1 × 107 CFU/g diet of P. putida; and the third group was fed a basal diet mixed with 1 g/kg diet of dried S. cerevisiae, resulting in a final concentration of 107 CFU/g of feeds. After 2 months of supplementation, various parameters including survival rate, body weight gain, feed conversion rate, specific growth rate, serum lysozyme activity, phagocytic activity, nitroblue tetrazolium activity, and disease resistance against A. hydrophila were evaluated.ResultBoth probiotic‐treated groups exhibited significant improvements compared to the control group. Specifically, enhanced survival rates, body weight gains, feed conversion rates, and specific growth rates were observed in the probiotic‐treated groups. Moreover, these groups demonstrated increased serum lysozyme, phagocytic, and nitroblue tetrazolium activities, indicative of an improved immune response. Notably, the probiotic‐treated groups displayed enhanced resistance against A. hydrophila infection. Histopathological examination revealed that P. putida significantly augmented the nonspecific immune response in Nile Tilapia.ConclusionThis preliminary study underscores the potential benefits of P. putida supplementation in Nile Tilapia diets. The inclusion of P. putida resulted in enhanced growth performance, improved immune status, and effective control of A. hydrophila infection. These findings suggest that P. putida holds promise as a valuable component in feed mixtures for promoting the growth and health of Nile Tilapia.

show abstract

Coinfection of tilapia lake virus and Aeromonas hydrophila synergistically increased mortality and worsened the disease severity in tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)

Cited by 83 publications

References 61 publications

Two‐year surveillance of tilapia lake virus (TiLV) reveals its wide circulation in tilapia farms and hatcheries from multiple districts of Bangladesh

Two‐year surveillance of tilapia lake virus (TiLV) reveals its wide circulation in tilapia farms and hatcheries from multiple districts of Bangladesh

The nature and consequences of co‐infections in tilapia: A review

Potential of Pseudomonas putida probiotic feed mixture for improving growth, immune response, and disease resistance in Nile Tilapia compared to Saccharomyces cerevisiae probiotic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About