4.5 Article

New Zealand rickettsia-like organism and Tenacibaculum maritimum vaccine efficacy study

期刊

JOURNAL OF FISH DISEASES
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jfd.13883

关键词

Piscirickettsia; Rickettsia-like organisms; salmon; Tenacibaculum maritimum; vaccine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the protective effect of an autogenous vaccine against NZ-RLO1 in preventing severe disease and death in Chinook salmon juveniles. It also highlights the importance of the route of administration and dose in evaluating pathogenicity and vaccine efficacy.
A cohort of Chinook salmon juveniles was vaccinated, with an autogenous bivalent vaccine against New Zealand RLOs (NZ-RLO1) and Tenacibaculum maritimum. A proportion of the cohort was not vaccinated to act as controls. At smoltification, the fish were challenged with NZ-RLO1, NZ-RLO2, or T. maritimum. We found that challenge with T. maritimum by immersion in (7.5 x 10(5) cfu/mL of water) did not yield any pathology. Challenge with RLOs produced clinical signs that were more or less severe depending on the challenge route, dose or vaccination status. Survival was significantly higher for vaccinated fish within the groups challenged with NZ-RLO1 by intraperitoneal injection with a relative percent survival (RPS) of 48.84%. Survival was not significantly different between vaccinated and non-vaccinated fish for groups challenged with NZ-RLO2 by intraperitoneal injection or by NZ-RLO1 by immersion. Yet, anecdotally the clinical disease presentation (manifesting as haemorrhagic, ulcerative skin lesions) was more severe for the non-vaccinated fish. This study demonstrates that autogenous vaccine against NZ-RLO is protective against severe disease and death by NZ-RLO1 challenge which warrants implementation and further evaluation under field conditions. Yet, this study also highlights the importance of the route of administration and dose when evaluating pathogenicity and vaccine efficacy.

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