4.5 Article

Vibrio communities in scleractinian corals differ according to health status and geographic location in the Mediterranean Sea

期刊

SYSTEMATIC AND APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 131-138

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.syapm.2017.11.007

关键词

Vibrio; Oculina; Cladocora; Bleaching; Mediterranean

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon framework program [LEIT-BIO-2015-685474]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CLG2015_66686-C3-3]
  3. FEDER from the European Union
  4. University of Alicante

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increase in seawater temperature associated with global warming is a significant threat to coral health and is linked to increasing mass mortality events and Vibrio-related coral diseases. In the Mediterranean Sea, the endemic Cladocora caespitosa and the invasive species Oculina patagonica are the main scleractinian corals affected by mass mortalities. In this study, culturable Vibrio spp. assemblages associated with healthy and unhealthy colonies of these two shallow coral species were characterized to assess the presence of Vibrio pathogens in tissue necrosis. Vibrio communities associated with O. patagonica and C. caespitosa showed geographical differences, although these became more homogeneous in unhealthy specimens of both species. Furthermore, the number of recovered Vibrio specimens was more than five times higher in unhealthy than in healthy corals. Within these culturable vibrios, the known pathogens Vibrio mediterranei and Vibrio coralliilyticus were present in unhealthy colonies of both coral species in the two localities, suggesting that they could play a role in the health status of C. caespitosa and thus act as generalist pathogens in Mediterranean corals. Nonetheless, a clonal type of V. coralliilyticus detected in C. caespitosa was not associated with disease signs, suggesting that this species could encompass assemblages with different levels of virulence. (C) 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH.

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