Author:
Youssef Hadeer A.,Ayoub Hala F.,Soror Eman I.,Matter Aya F.
Abstract
AbstractThis study aimed to develop and evaluate live and inactivated vaccines to Aeromonas veronii pathogenicity in Nile tilapia. Therefore, five well-identified Aeromonas veronii isolates, including A (HY1), A (HY2), A (HY3), A (HY4), and A (HY6) isolated from diseased Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), were used for vaccine preparation. Virulence genes detected by a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and lethal dose determination were conducted. Nile tilapia, each with a body weight of 25 ± 0.5 g were divided into six experimental groups (each of 20): T1 group (control), fish were injected with saline as a negative control, T2 group (formalin-killed vaccine) for the A (HY2) strain, T3 group ( formalized killed vaccine) for the A (HY4), T4 group (autoclaved vaccine) for the A (HY2), T5 group (autoclaved vaccine) for A (HY4), and T6 (live vaccine) for A (HY1), triplicate. At the end of the immunization period, all groups were challenged by A. veronii, A (HY2). Blood samples were drawn 21 days post-immunization and 3 days after the challenge test for antibody titer assay. The results showed that the pathogenicity of strains A (HY2) and A (HY4) was the strongest, as the lethality rates (LR) were 100% and 90%, respectively, whereas the pathogenicity was moderate for strains A (HY3) and A (HY6) (LR 60% for each). A (AY1) was the weakest strain as no dead fish was found for this strain. The presence of alt, act, aerolysin, lipase, and fla genes as the main cause of the pathogenesis. The best protective efficacy was obtained from the live vaccine, A (HY1) with a protective rate of about 94.12% (relative percentage of survival, RPS), compared to autoclaved killed vaccines and formalin-killed vaccines. Based on immunoglobulin estimation (IgM) and RPS%, our data concluded that A (HY1) live vaccine had the best vaccine prophylactic effect against the highly pathogenic strain A(HY2).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Agronomy and Crop Science,Aquatic Science
Reference53 articles.
1. Adams A (2019) Progress, challenges and opportunities in fish vaccine development. Fish Shellfish Immunol 90:210–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2019.04.066
2. Aly, T (1981) Studies on the effect of different adjuvant on the efficiency of FMD vaccine in farm animals. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Vet. Med. Zagazig University.
3. Amend, DF (1981) Potency testing of fish vaccines. In: Anderson DP, Hennessen H, editors. Fish biologics: sero diagnostics and vaccines. Developments in biological standardization. Basel: Karger; pp. 447–54.
4. Anderson E, Capstick P, Mowat G, Leech F (1970) In vitro method for safety testing of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. Epidemiol Infect 68:159–172
5. Aoki T (1999) Motile aeromonads (Aeromonas hydrophila). Fish Diseases and Disorders 3:427–454