Effects of oral vaccination against vibriosis in turbot, Scophthalmus maximus (L.), and sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax (L.)

Abstract

Turbot, Scophthalmus maximus (L.), and sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax (L.), are susceptible to vibriosis. a septicaemia caused in France by Vibrio anguillarum 408. A bacterin produced with this strain by Rhone-Mcrieux has been tested orally in both species and, as a con\parison, by intraperitoneal injection. During a ehallenge carried out 4 weeks later by intraperitoneal inoculation, the protection observed in orally vaccinated fishes was significant (72 % in sea bass and 70 % in turbot). Eleven weeks after vaccination, this protection is still significant. The mean titre of serum agglutinins was weakly inereased in orally vaccinated fishes. Bacteriostatic antibodies have also been searched for in serum, but compared to agglutination, the applied technique leads to lower titres and it has not been possible to prove the presence of sueh antibodies after oral vaccination. Passive immunizations using serum from orally vaccinated fishes {2 months after vaccination) confers some protection against a challenge carried out by inoculation of virulent vibrio. Therefore, the production of serum factors following oral vaccination of sea bass and turbot may be involved in generalized protection of fish.

Oral vaccination of juvenile carp (Cyprinus carpio) and gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) with bioencapsulatedVibrio anguillarumbacterin

“…These results suggest the formation of systemic memory in both species after oral vaccination with a bioencapsulated bacterin. In the case of vaccination against V. anguillarum, the humoral response is strongly related to final protection against vibriosis (Viele et al, 1980;Harrel et al, 1975;Dec et al, 1990). In addition, a mucosal immune response resulting in specific antibodies at mucosal surfaces may also be induced after oral vaccination (Rombout et al, 1989c) and could contribute to a higher level of protection.…”

“…However, till now oral immunisation of fish has not been very successful (Ellis, 1988). Compared with injection or immersion methods lower protection and/or lower antibody levels in serum were observed (Amend & Johnson, 1981;Johnson & Amend, 1983;Rombout et al, 1986;Dec et al, 1990) and large quantities of bacterin are required to be e#ective (Ward, 1982;Ellis, 1988). On the other hand, Johnson & Amend (1983) showed that anal vaccination against vibriosis and yersiniosis resulted in good protection, while oral vaccination only gave a limited protection.…”

Uptake of Vibrio anguillarum bacterin in the posterior intestine of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax and turbot Scophthalmus maximus after oral administration or anal intubation

“…The efficacy of oral and rectal vaccination trials and the protection induced by passive immunization with serum from orally vaccinated fish are supportive for such as systemic immune response (Kawai e t al. 1981, Dec et al 1990, Vigneulle 1990). …”

“…In marine fish species, good protection has been observed following oral immunization of turbot (Baudin Laurencin & Batellier 1986) and seabass (Dec et al 1990). In salmonids, oral immunization has yielded variable results: it resulted in good protection in the studies of Johnson & Amend (1983) and Vigneulle (1990), but it proved ineffective in studies reported by Baudin Laurencin & Tangtrongpiros (1980) and Horne et al (1982).…”

Effectiveness of different vaccine formulations against vibriosis caused by Vibrio vulnificus serovar E (biotype 2) in European eels Anguilla anguilla

“…The use of vaccines in aquaculture has been shown to successfully protect fish against bacterial diseases, such as vibriosis (caused by Listonella anguillarum [formerly Vibrio anguillarum] and V. ordalii ), edwardsiellosis, furunculosis, streptococcosis and pasteurellosis (Song et al 1982, Austin 1983, Larsen 1988, Smith 1988, Dec et al 1990, Roogers & Xu 1992, Magariños et al 1994, Quentel & Ogier de Baulny 1995, Toranzo et al 1995, Romalde et al 1996, Gravningen et al 1998. In particular, the success achieved in immunization against other vibrioses (Smith 1988) suggests that the best solution would be an effective vaccine against V. vulnificus.…”