4.6 Article

Detection and Quantification of the Oomycete Saprolegnia parasitica in Aquaculture Environments

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10112186

关键词

fish pathogen; oomycete; Saprolegnia parasitica; qPCR assay; eDNA detection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study validated a qPCR assay for rapid and accurate detection of Saprolegnia parasitica in aquaculture, showing high sensitivity and specificity in both experimental and field applications. The method can be used to detect S. parasitica in water samples and parasites in fish mucus, providing an effective means for disease management and surveillance in aquaculture.
Saprolegnia parasitica induces heavy mortality in aquaculture. The detection of S. parasitica is often time consuming and uncertain, making it difficult to manage the disease. We validated a previously published real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay to confirm the presence of S. parasitica in fish and in water using environmental DNA (eDNA) quantification. Analytical sensitivity and specificity of the assay was assessed in silico, in vitro and the qPCR assay was compared with microbiological cultivation methods to detect and quantify S. parasitica in water samples from a controlled fish exposure experiment and from fish farms. Furthermore, we compared the use of an agar cultivation method and the qPCR assay to detect S. parasitica directly from mucus samples taken from the fish surface. The analytical sensitivity and specificity of the qPCR assay were high. The qPCR assay detected 100% of S. parasitica-positive water samples. In a field study, the qPCR assay and a microwell plate (MWP) enumeration method correlated significantly. Furthermore, the qPCR assay could be used to confirm the presence of S. parasitica in skin mucus. Thus, the qPCR assay could complement diagnostic methods in specifically detecting saprolegniosis in fish and used as a surveillance method for S. parasitica pathogen in aquaculture environments.

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

4.6
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