2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2019.107274
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non-destructive method for detecting Aphanomyces astaci, the causative agent of crayfish plague, on the individual level

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Four types of crayfish samples were taken for each individual crayfish: exoskeletal biofilm, hemolymph, hepatopancreas, and intestine (i.e., midgut and hindgut). Exoskeletal biofilm was sampled by taking cuticle swabs as previously described ( 91 ). Briefly, any loosely adhered debris (such as vegetation, mud, or sediment) was manually removed from the crayfish, which were then thoroughly scrubbed with a sterile brush wetted with a 0.1% NaCl and 0.15 M Tween 20 solution.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Four types of crayfish samples were taken for each individual crayfish: exoskeletal biofilm, hemolymph, hepatopancreas, and intestine (i.e., midgut and hindgut). Exoskeletal biofilm was sampled by taking cuticle swabs as previously described ( 91 ). Briefly, any loosely adhered debris (such as vegetation, mud, or sediment) was manually removed from the crayfish, which were then thoroughly scrubbed with a sterile brush wetted with a 0.1% NaCl and 0.15 M Tween 20 solution.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Genomic DNA was extracted from exoskeletal biofilm, hemolymph, hepatopancreas, and intestine using the NucleoSpin microbial DNA kit (Macherey-Nagel, Germany) as per the manufacturer’s protocol for Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and with modifications regarding sample lysis by agitation as previously described ( 91 ). Genomic DNA from sediment and water samples was extracted using a DNeasy PowerSoil Pro kit (Qiagen, Germany).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The resistant invasive signal crayfish had continuously elevated levels of proPO expression, which could not be additionally increased by immunostimulants like in a susceptible native crayfish species [ 138 ], such as the narrow-clawed crayfish. The prevalence of crayfish plague in the signal crayfish population in the Korana River was very low (6% of individuals, distributed equally along the invasion range) [ 139 ], while qPCR quantification of A. astaci performed in parallel with this study identified very low agent levels (A0–A3, with the majority of samples from individuals of both species classified as A0; Bielen et al, in preparation). Therefore, neither native nor invasive crayfish populations show signs of recent crayfish plague outbreaks, which could potentially have a high impact on their immune response.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…eDNA coupled with sensitive molecular techniques such as qPCR (e.g. Robinson et al., 2018; Strand et al., 2019; Wittwer et al., 2018) are increasingly being used in monitoring of crayfish plague, and non‐invasive approach to A. astaci detection from cuticle swabs has recently been developed that circumvents the killing of crayfish for A. astaci detection purposes (Pavić et al, 2020). Again, it must be acknowledged that such approaches have been designed for monitoring and detection of the most well‐studied disease in crayfish, the crayfish plague, while methodological developments for detection of other diseases remain sparse.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%