pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Host Response of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Re-Inoculated with Paramoeba perurans - PubMed

  • ️Fri Jan 01 2021

Host Response of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Re-Inoculated with Paramoeba perurans

Michelle McCormack et al. Microorganisms. 2021.

Abstract

In aquaculture, recurrence rates of amoebic gill disease (AGD) caused by the ectoparasite Paramoeba perurans are high and no prophylactic strategies exist for disease prevention. In this study, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) were initially inoculated with P. perurans and following the development of amoebic gill disease were treated with freshwater immersion on day 21 and day 35 post inoculation. Fish were re-inoculated following a negative qPCR analysis for the presence of P. perurans. The gill host immune response was investigated at 7, 14, and 18 days post re-inoculation. Differential proteome expression of immune related proteins was assessed by comparison of each time point against naïve controls. In the gill, some proteins of the innate immune system were expressed in response to gill re-colonization by P. perurans, while no features of adaptive immunity were found to be differentially expressed. Many of the proteins identified are novel in the context of AGD and their expression profiles suggest that their roles in the response to disease development and progression in single or multiple infections warrant further investigation.

Keywords: amoebic gill disease; gill proteome; immune response; repeat inoculation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

Experimental design of trial investigating the host response to repeat infection with P. perurans. Fish were acclimatized for 7 days. Immediately prior to the initial P. perurans inoculation, naïve control fish were sampled (T0). AGD was confirmed by gill score analysis 21 days after inoculation and fish were treated by freshwater immersion. Some features of AGD persisted 14 days after freshwater treatment, and the freshwater immersion was repeated. Fish health was confirmed by gross gill analysis 14 days after the second freshwater treatment, and fish were sampled prior to re-infection with P. perurans (T1). Fish were sampled at 7 (T2), 14 (T3) and 18 (T4) days post re-infection.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Distribution of gill scores from fish sampled 7 days (T2), 14 days (T3), and 18 days (T4) post re-infection.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Heatmap plot of the proteins exhibiting t-test differences of at least +/− 1.5 in (A) control (T0) and post freshwater treatment samples (T1), (B) control (T0) and 7 days post re-infection samples (T2), (C) control (T0) and 14 days post re-infection samples (T3) and (D) control (T0) and 18 days post re-infection samples (T4) after LFQ values were z-score normalized. Hierarchical clustering was performed using Euclidian distance and average linkage using the Perseus software.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Heatmap plot of the proteins exhibiting t-test differences of at least +/− 1.5 in (A) control (T0) and post freshwater treatment samples (T1), (B) control (T0) and 7 days post re-infection samples (T2), (C) control (T0) and 14 days post re-infection samples (T3) and (D) control (T0) and 18 days post re-infection samples (T4) after LFQ values were z-score normalized. Hierarchical clustering was performed using Euclidian distance and average linkage using the Perseus software.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Heatmap plot of the proteins exhibiting t-test differences of at least +/− 1.5 in (A) control (T0) and post freshwater treatment samples (T1), (B) control (T0) and 7 days post re-infection samples (T2), (C) control (T0) and 14 days post re-infection samples (T3) and (D) control (T0) and 18 days post re-infection samples (T4) after LFQ values were z-score normalized. Hierarchical clustering was performed using Euclidian distance and average linkage using the Perseus software.

Similar articles

References

    1. Munday B.L. Proceedings of the Workshop on Diseases of Australian Fish and Shellfish. Australian Fish Health Reference Laboratory, Regional Veterinary Laboratory; Benalla, Australia: 1986. Diseases of salmonids; pp. 127–141.
    1. Rodger H.D. Amoebic gill disease (AGD) in farmed salmon (Salmo salar) in Europe. Fish Vet. J. 2014;14:16–27.
    1. Adams M.B., Nowak B.F. Amoebic gill disease: Sequential pathology in cultured Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J. Fish Dis. 2003;26:601–614. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2761.2003.00496.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Taylor R., Muller W., Cook M., Kube P., Elliott N. Gill observations in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar, L.) during repeated amoebic gill disease (AGD) field exposure and survival challenge. Aquaculture. 2009;290:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.01.030. - DOI
    1. Oldham T., Rodger H., Nowak B.F. Incidence and distribution of amoebic gill disease (AGD)—An epidemiological review. Aquaculture. 2016;457:35–42. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.02.013. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources