Etiologies, observations and reporting of estuarine finfish lesions

Kane, Andrew S.; Dykstra, Michael J.; Noga, Edward J.; Reimschuessel, Renate; Baya, Ana M.; Driscoll, Cindy; Paerl, Hans W.; Landsberg, Jan H.

doi:10.1016/s0141-1136(00)00117-3

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A. invadans, however, should not be considered the sole etiology for ulcerative lesions. Stress, poor nutrition, and certain parasite, bacterial, and viral infections are all capable of producing similar lesions (20,24,32,39). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular Assays for DetectingAphanomyces invadansin Ulcerative Mycotic Fish Lesions

Vandersea

Litaker

Yonnish

et al. 2006

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pathogenic oomycete Aphanomyces invadans is the primary etiological agent in ulcerative mycosis, an ulcerative skin disease caused by a fungus-like agent of wild and cultured fish. We developed sensitive PCR and fluorescent peptide nucleic acid in situ hybridization (FISH) assays to detect A. invadans. Laboratory-challenged killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus) were first tested to optimize and validate the assays. Skin ulcers of Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) from populations found in the Pamlico and Neuse River estuaries in North Carolina were then surveyed. Results from both assays indicated that all of the lesioned menhaden (n ‫؍‬ 50) collected in September 2004 were positive for A. invadans. Neither the FISH assay nor the PCR assay cross-reacted with other closely related oomycetes. These results provided strong evidence that A. invadans is the primary oomycete pathogen in ulcerative mycosis and demonstrated the utility of the assays. The FISH assay is the first molecular assay to provide unambiguous visual confirmation that hyphae in the ulcerated lesions were exclusively A. invadans.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular Assays for DetectingAphanomyces invadansin Ulcerative Mycotic Fish Lesions

Vandersea

Litaker

Yonnish

et al. 2006

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gross pathological observations and length and weight data were taken for each fish after sacrifice ͑Kane, 1996; Kane et al, 2000͒. Gross pathological observations examined the condition of the skin, eyes, fins, mesenteric vasculature, and the swim bladder to assess the general condition of the fish and look for possible exposure-related hemorrhage.…”

Section: Necropsy and Histopathologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout

Popper

Halvorsen

Kane

et al. 2007

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the effects on rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) of exposure to high-intensity, low-frequency sonar using an element of the standard Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar source array. Effects of the LFA sonar on hearing were tested using auditory brainstem responses. Effects were also examined on inner ear morphology using scanning electron microscopy and on nonauditory tissues using general pathology and histopathology. Animals were exposed to a maximum received rms sound pressure level of 193 dB re 1 microPa(2) for 324 or 648 s, an exposure that is far in excess of any exposure a fish would normally encounter in the wild. The most significant effect was a 20-dB auditory threshold shift at 400 Hz. However, the results varied with different groups of trout, suggesting developmental and/or genetic impacts on how sound exposure affects hearing. There was no fish mortality during or after exposure. Sensory tissue of the inner ears did not show morphological damage even several days post-sound exposure. Similarly, gross- and histopathology observations demonstrated no effects on nonauditory tissues.

show abstract

“…During the P. piscicida "seasons" (from midsummer through late fall) since the initiation of PEAS surveillance (June 1998), there have been few adverse impacts on fish populations that could be attributed to P. piscicida and very few indications of P. piscicida blooms (periods of exuberant growth). Although the reasons for this lack of P. piscicida activity are unclear, it is possible that upon more careful observation, fish kills and the presence of lesions on fish are being attributed to other causes, including environmental stressors such as suboptimal water quality (17) or fungal infections (18,19). In addition, runoff from the massive hurricanerelated flooding in the North Carolina piedmont area may have created suboptimal habitat for this organism, limiting its ability to impact fish and/or human health.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental public health surveillance: possible estuary-associated syndrome.

Backer

Niskar

Rubin

et al. 2001

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public health surveillance involves the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data for use in public health practice. A surveillance system includes the capacity to collect and analyze data as well as the ability to disseminate the data to public health agencies that can undertake effective prevention and control activities. An emerging issue in environmental public health surveillance involves human exposure to the toxins produced by microorganisms present in oceans and estuaries. One of these organisms is Pfiesteria piscicida Steidinger & Burkholder, a dinoflagellate found in estuaries along the Atlantic and gulf coasts of the United States. There have been reports of both human illness associated with occupational exposures to concentrated laboratory cultures of P. piscicida and massive fill kills associated with the presence of the organism in rivers and estuaries. These reports, and anecdotal reports from people who worked on rivers where the organism has been found, generated concern that environmental exposures to P. piscicida, similar organisms, or perhaps a toxin or toxins produced by the organism(s), could cause adverse human health effects. To begin to evaluate the public health burden associated with P. piscicida, investigators from the National Center for Environmental Health at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health agencies from states along the Atlantic coast collaborated to develop a passive surveillance system for collecting, classifying, and tracking public inquiries about the organism. Specifically, the group developed exposure and symptom criteria and developed data collection and reporting capabilities to capture the human health parameters collectively referred to as possible estuary-associated syndrome (PEAS). The surveillance system was implemented in six states (Delaware, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia) beginning in June 1998. From 1 June 1998 through 30 June 2001, the six state health agencies participating in the PEAS surveillance system received 3,859 calls: 3,768 callers requested information and 91 callers reported symptoms. Five individuals have been identified as meeting PEAS criteria.

show abstract

Etiologies, observations and reporting of estuarine finfish lesions

Cited by 16 publications

References 11 publications

Molecular Assays for DetectingAphanomyces invadansin Ulcerative Mycotic Fish Lesions

Molecular Assays for DetectingAphanomyces invadansin Ulcerative Mycotic Fish Lesions

The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout

Environmental public health surveillance: possible estuary-associated syndrome.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About