4.1 Article

Comparative analysis of Vibrio splendidus-related strains isolated during Crassostrea gigas mortality events

Journal

AQUATIC LIVING RESOURCES
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 251-258

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1016/S0990-7440(02)01176-2

Keywords

oyster mortality; PCR-RFLP; epidemiology; virulence; Vibrio splendidus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

French mollusc production is based mainly on the Pacific cupped oyster, Crassostrea gigas. Since 1991, annual mass mortality of juveniles has been reported during summer months. These recurring episodes concern professionals who fear that like Portugese oyster, C. angulata, C gigas could in turn disappear following one of these epizooties. Previously, bacteriological analysis of moribund oyster juveniles yielded an isolate of a Vibrio splendidus biovar H strain, named TNEMF6. This isolate was demonstrated to be pathogenic to Crassostrea gigas spat by experimental challenge. To study the association between summer oyster mortality and presence of TNEMF6 cluster strains, Vibrionaceae fauna were isolated from infected spat along the French Atlantic coast between 1997-1998. Strains related to V splendidus biovar II were selected. Comparison with TNEMF6 was performed by classical biochemical tests and polymerase chain reaction - restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) of SSU rDNA, rpoD, and gyrB genes. Genomic similarities were confirmed by DNA/DNA hybridization. Only one strain out of 14, TNNIII7, was found to be closely related to the pathogenic bacteria. Neither the phenotypic nor the genotypic markers used in this study were able to distinguish pathogenic from non-pathogenic strains of the widespread V splendidus. However, future genetic comparisons of TNEMF6 and TNNIII7 is likely to reveal genes involved in pathogenicity. (C) 2002 Ifremer/CNRS/Iiira/IRD/Cemagref/Editions scientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available