SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2014 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3

In vitro assessment on intestinal microfora from commonly farmed fshes for control of the fsh pathogen Edwardsiella tarda

Jiun Yan LOH
Yau Yan LIM
Adeline Su Yien TING
Sharr Azni HARMIN
Pages
257–263
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our BLIS data suggestthat L. lactis subsp. lactis CF4MRS at the cell density of 106 cfu/mL could be effectively used to control E. tarda .

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was aimed to evaluate the microfora isolated from the intestines of tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus), freshwatercatfsh (Clarias batrachus), snakehead (Ophicephalus striatus), snakeskin gourami (Trichogaster pectoralis), climbing perch ( Anabastestudineus), and river catfsh (Pangasius pangasius) for their potential probiotic development.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Our results revealed 55of the 405 isolates tested showed inhibitory effects towards the pathogen.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our BLIS data suggestthat L. lactis subsp. lactis CF4MRS at the cell density of 106 cfu/mL could be effectively used to control E. tarda .
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study was aimed to evaluate the microfora isolated from the intestines of tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus), freshwatercatfsh (Clarias batrachus), snakehead (Ophicephalus striatus), snakeskin gourami (Trichogaster pectoralis), climbing perch ( Anabastestudineus), and river catfsh (Pangasius pangasius) for their potential probiotic development. Isolates were initially screened for theirinhibitory efect against one of the most common fsh pathogens, Edwardsiella tarda . Positive antagonists were subsequently tested forhemolytic activity, antibiotic susceptibility, and production of bacteriocin-like inhibitory substances (BLISs). Our results revealed 55of the 405 isolates tested showed inhibitory effects towards the pathogen. Forty isolates were γ-hemolytic bacteria. Only 7 isolates werenonresistant to tested antibiotics. Tey were identifed as Lactococcus lactis based on 16S rRNA characterization. Our BLIS data suggestthat L. lactis subsp. lactis CF4MRS at the cell density of 106 cfu/mL could be effectively used to control E. tarda .

🔖

Cite This Article

LOH, J. Y., LIM, Y. Y., TING, A. S. Y., HARMIN, S. A. (2022). In vitro assessment on intestinal microfora from commonly farmed fshes for control of the fsh pathogen Edwardsiella tarda. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3, 257–263. https://ajindex.com/articles/615279

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Mainous ME, Smith SA, Kuhn DD. Efect of common aquaculture chemicals against Edwardsiella ictaluri and E. tarda. J Aquat Anim Health 2010; 22: 224–228
  2. Mohanty BR, Sahoo PK. Edwardsiellosis in fsh: a brief review. J Biosci 2007; 32: 1331–1344
  3. Nucci C, Silveria WD, Correa SS. Nakazato G, Bando SY, Ribeiro MA, Castro AFP. Microbiological comparative study of isolates of Edwardsiella tarda isolated in diferent countries from fsh and humans. Vet Microbiol 2002; 89: 29–39
  4. Srinivasa Rao PS, Yamada Y, Tan YP, Leung KY. Use of proteomics to identify novel virulence determinants that are required for Edwardsiella tarda pathogenesis. Mol Microbiol 2004; 53: 573–586
  5. Waltman WD, Shotts EB. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Edwardsiella tarda from the United States and Taiwan. Vet Microbiol 1986; 12: 277–282
  6. Clark RB, Lister PD, Janda JM. In vitro susceptibilities of Edwardsiella tarda to 22 antibiotics and antibiotic-beta- lactamase-inhibitor agents. Diagn Micr Infect Dis 1991; 14: 173–175
  7. Taoka K, Maeda H, Jo JY, Kim SM, Park SI, Yoshikawa T, Sakata T. Use of live and dead probiotic cells in tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Fisheries Sci 2006; 72: 755–766
  8. Pintado J, Pérez-Lorenzo M, Luna-González A, Sotelo CG. Monitoring of the bioencapsulation of a probiotic Phaeobacter strain in the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Aquaculture 2010; 302: 182–194
  9. Chang CI, Liu WY. An evaluation of two probiotic bacterial strains, Enterococcus faecium SF 68 and Bacilus toyoi, for reducing edwardsiellosis in cultured European eel, Anguilla anguilla L. J Fish Dis 2002; 25: 311–315
  10. Sahu MK, Swarnakumar NS, Sivakumar K, Tangaradjou T, Kannan L. Probiotics in aquaculture: importance and future perspectives. Indian J Microbiol 2008; 48: 299–308
  11. Ting ASY, Tan SH, Wai MK. Isolation and characterization of Actinobacteria with antibacterial activity from soil and rhizosphere soil. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2009; 3: 4053–4059
  12. Nurhidayu A, Ina-Salwany MY, Mohd Daud H, Harmin SA. Isolation, screening and characterization of potential probiotics from farmed tiger grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus). Afr J Microbiol Res 2012; 6: 1924–1933
  13. Bell SM, Pham JN, Newton PJ, Nguyen TT. A Manual for Medical and Veterinary Laboratories. 7th ed. Randwick, Australia: South Eastern Area Laboratory Services; 2013
  14. Cabello FC. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal h