IgM Antibodies in Fish Mucus

Bradshaw, Claire M.; Richard, Alan S.; Sigel, M. Michael

doi:10.3181/00379727-136-35443

Cited by 53 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…injection (31). While it is known that antibodies are present at the surface of fish (that is, in mucus) (32,33), the origin of such antibodies is poorly understood.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface antigen cross-linking triggers forced exit of a protozoan parasite from its host.

Clark

Lin

Dickerson

1996

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used the common fish pathogen Ichthyophthirius multifliis as a model for studying interactions between parasitic ciliates and their vertebrate hosts. Although highly pathogenic, Ichthyophthirius can elicit a strong protective immune response in fish after exposure to controlled infections. To investigate the mechanisms underlying host resistance, a series of passive immunization experiments were carried out using mouse monoclonal antibodies against a class of surface membrane proteins, known as immobilization antigens (or i-antigens), thought to play a role in the protective response. Such antibodies bind to cilia and immobilize I. multifiliis in vitro. Surprisingly, we found that passive antibody transfer in vivo caused rapid exit of parasites from the host. The effect was highly specific for a given L multifiliis serotype. F(ab)2 subfragments had the same effect as intact antibody, whereas monovalent Fab fragments failed to protect. The activity of Fab could, nevertheless, be restored after subsequent i.p. injection of bivalent goat anti-mouse IgG. Parasites that exit the host had detectable antibody on their surface and appeared viable in all respects. These findings represent a novel instance among protists in which protective immunity (and evasion of the host response) result from an effect of antibody on parasite behavior.

show abstract

“…injection (31). While it is known that antibodies are present at the surface of fish (that is, in mucus) (32,33), the origin of such antibodies is poorly understood.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface antigen cross-linking triggers forced exit of a protozoan parasite from its host.

Clark

Lin

Dickerson

1996

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The well-documented non-specific defence mechanisms (Fletcher 1982) and specific immune response of the fish host (St. Louis-Cormier et al 1984) could also influence resistance to monogenean invasion. Thus, a number of active non-specific substances such as proteases (Hjelmeland et al 1983), trypsin (Braun et al 1990), lysozyme (Lie et al 1989) and specific antibodies (Fletcher & Grant 1969, Bradshaw et al 1971, Lobb & Clem 1981, St. Louis-Cormier et al 1984 have been detected in fish mucus. As both the resistance of brown trout to ectoparasite invasion and the epidermis change seasonally (Pickering 1977, Pickering & Christie 1980 and the composition of fish mucus varies during a Gyrodactylus sp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gyrodactylus derjavini infections in four salmonids:comparative host susceptibility and site selection of parasites

Buchmann¹,

Uldal²

1997

Dis. Aquat. Org.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The susceptibility of 4 salmonids [rainbow trout Oncorhynchus rnykiss, brown trout Salmo trutta, a Baltic (Iijoki) and an Atlantic (Conon) strain of Salmo salar] to infect~on with a Danish isolate of Gyrodactylus derjavinj was tested in the laboratory (12 to 13°C). Initial parasite attachment numbers did not differ between species, but parasite populations increased significantly faster and to a higher level in rainbow trout compared to the other salmonids, with S. trutta exhibiting an intermediate position. The 2 strains of S. salar became only slightly infected during the following weeks despite a heavy infection pressure. The parasites' selection of microhabitat on the hosts also differed between species and changed over time on the same host species. The tail fin was the preferred site in all salmonids although the pectoral, pelvic and anal fins were important sites in the initial period of the 6 wk investigation. It is notable that the cornea1 surface, especially in the Baltic salmon, became increasingly more heavily infected in the later stages of the infection period. Explanations for the differing degrees of susceptibility are suggested and some of these were investigated. Lysozyme activity in the fin epithelia and the density of mucous cells in the fins from the hosts were compared. Marked lysozyme activity was detected in tail fins from the 4 salmonids, but the activity was not associated with host resistance to infection. In contrast, the density of superficial mucous cells, which showed regional variation on the tail fins, was negatively correlated with susceptibility to infection. Thus, fish with high density of epithelia1 mucous cells showed the lowest susceptibility to infection, and this finding is discussed in relation to host resistance.

show abstract

“…This may be due to the action of unique components present in fish. Fish mucin has been shown to have antimicrobial properties [18], and this is probably a contributory factor to its wound healing activity observed in this study. Biologically, the interface between fish and its aqueous environment consists of a mucus layer composed of diverse biochemical secretions from epidermal and epithelial cells which may serve as a protective barrier against potential pathogens of their environment [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Fish mucin has been shown to have antimicrobial properties [18], and this is probably a contributory factor to its wound healing activity observed in this study. Biologically, the interface between fish and its aqueous environment consists of a mucus layer composed of diverse biochemical secretions from epidermal and epithelial cells which may serve as a protective barrier against potential pathogens of their environment [18]. Previous reports of the protective role of mucus and its components in various fish species suggest that the epidermal mucus acts as a first line of defense against pathogens and therefore may offer a potential source of novel antimicrobial components [19] Conversely, the negative effects of bacterial in wound healing cannot be ignored; hence the antibacterial activity of the fish mucin may be a boost to its wound healing potential.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%