4.7 Article

Flavobacterium columnare genomovar influences mortality in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 127, 期 3-4, 页码 353-359

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.09.003

关键词

Flavobacterium columnare; channel catfish; genomovar; virulence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flavobacterium columnare, causal agent of columnaris disease, is pathogenic to many species of freshwater fish throughout the world. The United States channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) aquaculture industry is severely impacted by columnaris disease. The majority of the F columnare isolates recovered from diseased channel catfish belonged to either genomovars I or II. The objective of the present study was to determine if differences existed in the ability of these genomovars to induce mortality in channel catfish. Single strand conformation polymorphism analysis (SSCP) was used to ascribe the isolates used in this study to the appropriate genomovar. Immersion challenge experiments (15 min immersion exposure to similar to 5 x 10(5) to 1 x 10(6) CFU/mL) were carried out to assess virulence of genomovar I and II isolates to channel catfish. The results demonstrated that genomovar 11 (n = 4) isolates were significantly (P < 0.05) more virulent to channel catfish fry (92-100% mortality) than genomovar I (n = 3) isolates (0-46% mortality). In vivo adhesion of the genetically characterized E columnare also correlated (r(2) = 0.73) to increased mortality in the challenged fry. In fingerling channel catfish, significantly higher mortality (P < 0.05) resulted with genomovar II isolates ALM-05-182 and ALG-00-530 as compared to all the genomovar I isolates (n = 3). Mortality of genomovar II isolate BGFS-27 with similar to genomovar II isolate (ALG-00-530) and two genomovar I isolates (ALM-05-53 and 140). The results suggest that although both genomovars are present in the aquatic environment, genomovar II appears to be more pathogenic for channel catfish. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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