4.5 Article

Study of virulence in field isolates of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus obtained from the northern part of Norway

期刊

JOURNAL OF FISH DISEASES
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 89-102

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2761.2012.01423.x

关键词

field isolates; infectious pancreatic necrosis virus; mortality; sequence; virulence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to study the variety of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) strains involved in outbreaks of infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) in Atlantic salmon fish farms, samples were collected from 19 different outbreaks of IPN in the northern part of Norway. The main objective of this study was to examine whether IPNV isolates of different virulence were involved in the outbreaks and could explain the variable IPN protection observed in vaccinated post-smolts in the field. Both the molecular basis of virulence of all field isolates and virulence expressed by mortality after bath challenge of unvaccinated post-smolts with eight of the isolates were studied. Very little variation among the field isolates was detected when the 578-bp variable region encoding the VP2 protein known to be involved in virulence was sequenced. The cumulative mortality after experimental challenge with field isolates genetically characterized as highly virulent was always high (4056%), while the cumulative mortality of the same strains in vaccinated post-smolts during the field outbreaks varied from 1 to 50%. Although the tested samples came from fish vaccinated with the same vaccine product, the protection against IPN varied. These results demonstrate that differences in virulence of the isolates were not the main reason for the variation in mortality in the field outbreaks. Most of the field isolates were of high virulence, which is shown in experimental challenges to be important for mortality, but clearly other factors that might affect the susceptibility of IPN also play an important role in the outcome of an IPNV infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据