Next Article in Journal
Carotid Intima–Media Thickness and Atherogenic Indices in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Evidence of Subclinical Atherosclerosis
Previous Article in Journal
Leptin in Dairy Cows: Metabolic Adaptation, Reproductive Function, and Health Applications
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Phage Therapy for Sustainable Sea Cucumber Aquaculture

by
Wan Zhang
,
Xiaowen Sun
,
Bilal Murtaza
,
Xiaoyu Li
,
Lili Wang
and
Yongping Xu
*
aMOE Key Laboratory of Bio-Intelligent Manufacturing, School of Bioengineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2026, 16(6), 989; https://doi.org/10.3390/life16060989 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 31 March 2026 / Revised: 30 May 2026 / Accepted: 1 June 2026 / Published: 11 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Microbiology)

Abstract

Phage therapy is increasingly recognized as a promising alternative to antibiotics for controlling bacterial diseases in aquaculture. This review focuses specifically on sea cucumber farming, with emphasis on phage application methods, therapeutic performance, and current limitations in translating laboratory results into field use. Available studies show that phage-based treatments can improve the survival of Apostichopus japonicus challenged with Vibrio spp., especially when delivered through feed or formulated as phage cocktails. However, practical application is still constrained by host-range specificity, phage resistance, environmental stability, delivery efficiency, and regulatory barriers. By summarizing recent evidence and identifying research gaps, this review highlights the potential of phage therapy as a sustainable disease management strategy for sea cucumber aquaculture.

1. Introduction

Aquaculture has emerged as a critical sector in global food production, supplying nearly half of the world’s seafood demand, with China leading as the largest producer [1]. Among aquaculture species, sea cucumbers, particularly Apostichopus japonicus, have gained substantial economic importance due to their high nutritional and medicinal value [2,3]. Sea cucumber aquaculture continues to expand, with China reporting 326,000 tons of production in 2024, an increase of 34,000 tons over 2023, and market reports suggesting that China accounts for over 60% of global sea cucumber consumption (China Fishery Statistics Yearbook, 2024 [4]). However, the intensification of sea cucumber farming has exacerbated disease outbreaks, predominantly bacterial infections caused by Vibrio species and other opportunistic pathogens, leading to significant mortality and economic losses [5]. The prevalent use of antibiotics to manage these diseases has resulted in environmental contamination, antibiotic residues in aquatic products, and the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, posing serious threats to both aquaculture sustainability and public health [6].
Phage therapy research in aquaculture has expanded rapidly, but most studies remain pathogen-specific and laboratory-based. In sea cucumber farming, the evidence is promising but still fragmented, with major gaps in field validation, formulation stability, and ecological safety. In this context, bacteriophage therapy, utilizing viruses that specifically infect and lyse bacteria, has re-emerged as a promising and eco-friendly alternative for disease control in aquaculture [7]. Phages offer remarkable advantages, including high specificity to target pathogens without harming beneficial microbiota, self-replication in the presence of hosts, biodegradability, and minimal environmental impact [8]. The adaptability of phages to evolve alongside bacterial hosts makes them potent tools against antibiotic-resistant bacteria, aligning with global efforts to reduce antibiotic use in food production systems [9]. Recent advances in phage genomics, molecular biology, and biotechnology have enhanced our understanding of phage diversity, infection mechanisms, and safety, enabling the development of optimized phage cocktails tailored to specific pathogens such as Vibrio harveyi and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in aquaculture environments [10,11]. Although phage therapy has been reviewed in aquaculture, few reviews have focused specifically on sea cucumber disease management. In particular, the practical application routes of phages in Apostichopus japonicus farming and the limitations affecting their field use have not been discussed in sufficient detail. Therefore, this review addresses this gap by summarizing current evidence on phage therapy in sea cucumber aquaculture, with emphasis on application methods, therapeutic potential, and remaining challenges for practical implementation. This review aims to synthesize current evidence on bacteriophage therapy for sea cucumber (Apostichopus japonicus) aquaculture. Specifically, we address: (1) the major bacterial pathogens responsible for skin ulceration and the immune context of the host; (2) practical phage application methods and their demonstrated therapeutic performance; and (3) the principal challenges, including host-range specificity, phage resistance, environmental stability, and regulatory barriers that currently limit field implementation.

2. Status of Sea Cucumber and Sea Cucumber Farming

The sea cucumber (Apostichopus japonicus), sometimes referred to as the Japanese sea cucumber, belongs to the family Stichopodidae and genus Apostichopus. It is predominantly found along China’s coastal waters, especially around the Shandong Jiaodong Peninsula and the Liaoning coast, with Dalian and Yantai noted for producing sea cucumbers of superior quality. Of the more than 20 edible sea cucumber species documented in China, Apostichopus japonicus is distinguished by its high nutritional value, attributable to its rich protein content and diverse acidic mucopolysaccharides, which contribute to human metabolic regulation and immune system enhancement [12] (Table 1).
This has catalyzed rapid growth in China’s sea cucumber aquaculture over the past decade, making it the marine species with the highest individual species output value within the national aquaculture industry [13]. Sea cucumber farming has become an important aquaculture sector because it helps relieve pressure on wild stocks while meeting strong market demand in Asia, especially China. In China alone, sea cucumber production reached about 326,000 tons in 2024, and earlier reports noted that hatchery-based cultivation of Apostichopus japonicus could produce about 6 billion juveniles per year, showing the scale already achieved by the industry [14,15]. This expansion has been propelled by a transition from extensive to intensive and large-scale farming methods. However, intensification has also led to frequent bacterial disease outbreaks, with rotten skin syndrome being the most damaging. These disease outbreaks have caused substantial economic losses and triggered extensive use and often misuse of antibiotics and chemical treatments. Such practices have contributed to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, raising significant concerns for public health and the sustainability of aquaculture practices [16].
Table 1. Updated Sea Cucumber Species in China.
Table 1. Updated Sea Cucumber Species in China.
Species of Sea CucumberReproductive TypeSpawning PeriodOocyte Diameter (µm)References
Apostichopus japonicusGonochoricJune to August120[17]
Holothuria scabraGonochoricApril to July150–200[18]
Stichopus hermaniiGonochoricApril to September200[19]
Actinopyga lecanoraFissionMarch to July324[20]
Thelenota ananasGonochoricJune to August200[21]
Nutritionally, sea cucumbers have been used as a traditional food and medicinal resource in several cultures. They contain proteins, essential trace elements, vitamins, and fatty acids of nutritional interest, and their composition varies depending on species, processing method, and environmental conditions. Live sea cucumbers contain a high water content, whereas dried products are enriched in protein and contain relatively low total fat. Bacterial diseases such as Vibrio-associated skin ulceration can cause substantial losses in sea cucumber culture. Phage therapy has been proposed as a pathogen-specific approach for controlling bacterial infections in aquaculture [22,23,24] (Figure 1).

3. Vibrio Disease and Sea Cucumber Skin Rot Syndrome

Sea cucumber skin rot syndrome is one of the most serious bacterial diseases affecting Apostichopus japonicus farming, with Vibrio species identified among the major causative agents. Outbreaks usually begin with abnormal behavior and tissue damage and may progress rapidly to body-wall ulceration, autolysis, and death, causing substantial economic loss in seedling and grow-out systems [28,29]. Because the disease is highly infectious and often recurs in intensive farming environments, effective control strategies are urgently needed. In this context, phage therapy is particularly relevant because it offers targeted killing of pathogenic bacteria without adding chemical residues to the culture environment [30,31,32]. Numerous Vibrio spp. also affect fish and crustaceans (V. anguillarum, V. harveyi), but here we focus on strains implicated in sea cucumber skin ulceration [33,34] (Table 2).
Vibrio-associated disease outbreaks in sea cucumber aquaculture are influenced by multiple environmental factors, including water temperature, stocking density, and regional conditions. While Vibrio spp. are capable of persisting across a wide range of conditions, outbreak frequency and severity tend to increase during warmer months and in high-density culture systems, consistent with the thermal ecology of the dominant pathogens [35,36,37]. Diseases caused by Vibrio include eye rot, gill rot, tail rot, shell ulcer disease, muscle leukoplakia, yellow gill disease, larval fluorescent disease, septicemia, and skin rot [38,39,40,41]. Wang analyzed the pathogens and infection sources of these outbreaks in Shandong and classified the condition as “sea cucumber skin rot syndrome. The etiology of sea cucumber skin rot syndrome involves a clear hierarchy of infection. Vibrio splendidus and Vibrio alginolyticus are consistently identified as primary causative agents, initiating tissue damage through toxin production and enzymatic degradation of the body wall. Secondary infections by molds, parasites, and opportunistic bacteria frequently compound the initial lesions, particularly under high stocking densities and suboptimal water quality conditions. Regional variation is also evident, Vibrio splendidus predominates in Shandong and Liaoning, while Aeromonas salmonicida and Pseudoalteromonas spp. are more commonly reported in Fujian Province (Table 3) [42,43].
Table 2. Pathogenic Vibrio of aquatic animals.
Table 2. Pathogenic Vibrio of aquatic animals.
Pathogenic BacteriaInfected AnimalsPopular AreasReferences
Vibrio anguillarumPrawns, fish, Sea cucumberEurope, Asia[44]
Vibrio vulnificusEel, prawns, fishSpain, Asia[45]
Vibrio fluvialisBarramundi, carp, flounderChina[46]
Vibrio harveyiSea bass, yellow croakerAsia[47]
Vibrio alginolyticusPrawns, marine fish, and clamsEurope, Asia[48]
Vibrio parahaemolyticusPrawns, marine fish, and clamsEurope, Asia[49]
Vibrio mimicusSea breamJapan, China[50]
Vibrio carchariaeSea fishEurope, Asia[51]
Vibrio damselaMarine fish, shrimpEurope, Asia[52]
Vibrio ordaliiSea fishEurope, Asia[53]
Vibrio salmonicidaSalmonUK, Norway[54]
Vibrio ichthyoenteriFlounderJapan[55]
Vibrio choleraeAyuJapan[56,57,58]
Vibrio splendidusSea cucumber, oysterChina, France[59,60,61]
Table 3. Major pathogens of skin ulceration syndrome on sea cucumber.
Table 3. Major pathogens of skin ulceration syndrome on sea cucumber.
PathogensMain Incidence AreasReferences
Vibrio splendidusShandong Province, Liaoning Province, Fujian Province[62,63,64]
Vibrio cyclitrophicusLiaoning Province[65,66,67,68]
Vibrio alginolyticusShandong Province[69]
Vibrio harveyiLiaoning Province[70,71]
Vibrio parahaemolyticusLiaoning Province[72]
Aeromonas salmonicidaShandong Province[73]
PseudoalteromonasShandong Province, Fujian Province[74]
PseudomonasLiaoning Province, Shandong Province[75]
Shewanella smarisflaviLiaoning Province[76]

4. Nonspecific Immunity of Sea Cucumbers

The cellular immune response in echinoderms is mediated by various free-floating coelomocytes capable of recognizing and neutralizing pathogens through phagocytosis, encapsulation, coagulation, cytotoxicity, and wound healing [77,78]. Meanwhile, humoral immunity involves secreted molecules such as lectins, agglutinins, perforins, complement proteins, and cytokines found in bodily fluids that support pathogen defense [79,80]. Sea cucumbers rely mainly on nonspecific immune defenses, including coelomocytes, phagocytosis, encapsulation, and humoral factors, to resist microbial invasion. These innate responses are especially important in marine environments where exposure to pathogens is continuous. Since phage therapy reduces bacterial load at the infection site, it may complement these natural defenses rather than replace them, thereby supporting host survival and recovery under disease pressure [81]. These immune features are conserved in sea cucumbers, whose defenses include body wall barriers, cellular immune responses, and humoral factors. The body wall functions as the first defense line, enabling sea cucumbers to thrive in marine environments rich in bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Studies have shown that extracts from sea cucumber body walls exhibit antibacterial activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, with efficacy increasing alongside extract concentration [82,83]. Similar antibacterial substances resistant to proteinase K and heat, with hemolytic activity, have been identified in Cucumaria frondosa and are also present in the respiratory tree and gastrointestinal tissues [84].
Within the coelomic cavity, coelomic fluid houses coelomocytes crucial for immune defense. In Apostichopus japonicus, six major coelomocyte types have been characterized: progenitor cells, amoebocytes, vibratile cells, crystal cells, morula cells, and vacuolated cells, with progenitor cells being the most abundant, followed by amoebocytes [85,86]. Despite residing in pathogen-dense environments, the coelomic fluid remains nearly sterile, likely due to the efficient pathogen clearance by coelomocytes. Phagocytosis and encapsulation are central defense strategies, primarily mediated by amoeboid phagocytes that exist in petal-shaped forms for engulfing particles and filamentous forms involved in coagulation and wound repair [3]. These cells contain lysosomal enzymes such as acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, aminopeptidase, and lipase, which facilitate enzymatic degradation of foreign substances [87,88]. These innate immune features have direct implications for phage therapy. The presence of phagocytic coelomocytes and humoral antimicrobial factors means that introduced phage particles may be subject to non-specific clearance alongside bacterial targets. Studies in other invertebrate models suggest that the host immune environment can reduce phage persistence at infection sites, potentially requiring higher phage doses or repeated administration to maintain therapeutic titers. Conversely, phage-mediated reduction in bacterial load may reduce the immunological burden on coelomocytes, indirectly supporting host survival and recovery. Understanding these host phage pathogen interactions in A. japonicus represents an important direction for future mechanistic research [89,90,91,92].

5. Milestones in Phage Research

Bacteriophage research originated in 1917 when French-Canadian microbiologist Félix d’Hérelle identified a bacterial-destroying agent capable of curing dysentery patients, coining the term “phage” from the Greek phagein, meaning “to eat” [93] (Figure 2). Together with Frederick Twort, d’Hérelle established bacteriophage therapy as a recognized approach against infections, including avian typhoid fever, bovine hemorrhagic septicemia, bacillary dysentery, and bubonic plague [94,95,96,97], demonstrating early on that phages could be applied across both human and animal disease contexts, a principle that remains central to their current evaluation in aquaculture systems.
Renewed institutional momentum emerged in 2015, when the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases formally endorsed phage therapy as a strategy for combating antibiotic resistance, and the European Union funded the Phagoburn project with $5.2 million to conduct clinical trials targeting E. coli and P. aeruginosa in burn wound patients across France, Belgium, and the Netherlands [98,99]. In 2018, the U.S. FDA granted emergency use authorization for compassionate phage therapy in antibiotic-resistant cases [100,101,102,103,104,105], and the European Medicines Agency began developing regulatory guidelines for phage-based medicinal products. In April 2024, the European Pharmacopoeia adopted a dedicated chapter establishing quality control and manufacturing standards for phage-based products, while the FDA has advanced discussions on standardized approval pathways for phage cocktails and genetically modified phages [106,107]. While these regulatory advances are primarily directed at human medicine, they establish critical precedents, including phage safety profiling, manufacturing consistency requirements, and environmental release assessment frameworks that are directly applicable to veterinary and aquaculture phage product development. In aquaculture specifically, regulatory approval for phage-based treatments remains at an early stage in most jurisdictions, and coordinated alignment between food safety agencies and aquaculture regulators will be necessary before phage preparations can be licensed for commercial farm use, including sea cucumber aquaculture. An effective phage cocktail, whether for clinical or aquaculture application, must combine complementary host ranges, strong lytic activity, genetic safety, and formulation stability while minimizing antagonism among component phages [108,109].

6. Phage Classification and Biological Characteristics

Phage taxonomy has shifted from the classical morphology-based families Myoviridae, Podoviridae, and Siphoviridae to the updated ICTV framework, which uses refined higher-level classifications; therefore, the Supplementary Table is presented here for historical context and comparative reference. In 1966, the International Committee for the Nomenclature of Viruses (ICNV) and the Subcommittee on Bacterial Viruses were established to oversee virus taxonomy [110,111]. The ICTV’s 10th Report, published in 2017, provided a comprehensive update on virus taxonomy, incorporating molecular and morphological data [17]. Despite advances in molecular biology and genomics, virus classification still fundamentally relies on characteristics such as virion morphology, nucleic acid type, and host range. Viruses are primarily grouped based on their genome type into single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), single-stranded RNA (ssRNA), and double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) viruses. Taxonomic hierarchy is structured into five levels: Order, Family, Subfamily, Genus, and Species [112]. Currently, bacteriophages are classified into over 20 families, with approximately 96% belonging to the order Caudovirales [113]. Historically, Caudovirales were divided into three families based on tail morphology, Podoviridae (short tails, ~14%), Siphoviridae (long non-contractile tails, ~61%), and Myoviridae (contractile tails, ~25%) [114,115]. However, recent ICTV reports have refined this classification, reflecting genomic and proteomic insights. This approach addresses the vast genetic diversity unveiled by viral metagenomics. Table S1 summarizes representative classification statistics for each genus within Caudovirales according to the ICTV Master Species List 2023 v1.0 (ICTV, 2023 [116]), illustrating the dynamic evolution of phage taxonomy and the necessity for continual updates as new viral genomes emerge.
The protein coat, or capsid, typically consists of a head and tail structure (Figure 3) [117,118,119,120]. The genetic material of phages can be either DNA or RNA, and their genomes may be linear or circular [19]. While most phage capsids contain only nucleic acids and proteins, a small subset also incorporates lipids or sugars within their heads [121,122]. Importantly, bacteriophages lack the cellular machinery necessary for self-replication and metabolism; thus, they depend entirely on the host bacterial cell’s genetic translation system for replication and propagation [123,124].
Phages are classified into two main types based on their interaction with the host: lytic phages and lysogenic (temperate) phages [125]. Lytic phages infect bacterial cells, replicate rapidly, and cause host cell lysis to release progeny phages. Lysogenic phages, in contrast, integrate their genome into the host bacterial chromosome, existing as a prophage that replicates passively with the host cell [126,127]. Figure 3 depicts the lytic phage life cycle, outlining these stages and the dynamic host-phage interaction.

6.1. Adsorption and Penetration

Adsorption is the initial and essential step in the bacteriophage infection cycle, where phage particles specifically bind to receptors on the bacterial host cell surface. This binding is mediated by tail-specific proteins that recognize unique molecular structures such as lipopolysaccharides, teichoic acids, or membrane proteins [18,128,129,130]. The specificity of this interaction determines the phage’s host range, as infection occurs only in bacteria presenting compatible receptors [131].
Following adsorption, tailed bacteriophages of the order Caudovirales inject their genetic material into the bacterial host through a coordinated mechanism involving enzymatic degradation and mechanical force [132,133]. Initially, phage-associated enzymes like terminal lysozymes locally degrade the bacterial peptidoglycan layer, creating an entry point through the rigid cell wall [134]. The contractile tail sheath then contracts, driving the tail tube through the compromised envelope and injecting the phage genome into the host cytoplasm, functioning like a molecular syringe powered by stored tail energy [135]. This process is tightly regulated to ensure precise genome delivery. Beyond enzymatic and mechanical actions, some phages hijack host membrane proteins or efflux channels to facilitate genome translocation across the inner membrane, utilizing bacterial transport systems to breach this barrier [136].

6.2. DNA Synthesis and Morphogenesis

Following adsorption, the host RNA polymerase (RNAP) recognizes strong early phage promoters and initiates transcription of small precursor genes [137]. These early gene products redirect host transcriptional machinery to prioritize phage gene expression by inhibiting host promoter activity and inactivating restriction endonucleases, thus protecting phage DNA and ensuring efficient phage mRNA synthesis [20,138]. Subsequently, RNAP transcribes middle and late phage genes encoding structural proteins essential for virion assembly [139]. Phage DNA, often replicated as concatemers, is packaged into the procapsid through a portal complex powered by an ATP-driven motor [140,141]. Notably, the T4 phage packaging machine exhibits flexibility by translocating DNA into both immature proheads and mature capsids [142,143]. Once packaging is complete, tail proteins assemble onto the filled head to form mature virions. Tail assembly starts with tail-pin proteins, followed by neck proteins that connect the tail and head, sealing the virion. This highly regulated temporal and spatial assembly ensures production of infectious progeny [144,145]. The timing of host cell lysis is crucial for maximizing phage fitness. If lysis occurs too rapidly, only a limited number of phages may be produced and released, reducing the overall yield of infectious particles. Conversely, if lysis is excessively delayed, opportunities for subsequent infections diminish, and the production of secondary phages is compromised, potentially limiting the spread of the phage population [100,146,147].

7. Phage Application Methods in Sea Cucumber Aquaculture

Phage application in sea cucumber aquaculture has been demonstrated through several practical delivery routes, including oral administration, feed supplementation, immersion, and coelomic injection. In juvenile Apostichopus japonicus, phage-containing diets significantly improved survival after Vibrio splendidus challenge, and phage cocktails performed better than single-phage treatments, showing that feed-based delivery can be an effective and non-stressful approach for disease control in sea cucumber farming [148,149,150]. Similar results were reported for phage cocktails against Vibrio parahaemolyticus, where incorporation into feed with a suitable protectant improved therapeutic performance without negatively affecting growth or feed utilization [151]. More recent aquaculture reviews emphasize that the delivery route should be matched to the pathogen distribution, production stage, and farming environment, with oral and immersion routes often being the most practical for large-scale use, while injection remains more suitable for controlled experimental settings. Together, these studies indicate that phage therapy is most promising when formulated as a targeted, stable, and farm-specific intervention rather than as a single universal treatment strategy [152,153,154].

8. Phage Therapy in Sea Cucumber Disease Management

Phage application in sea cucumber aquaculture can be achieved through several practical routes, including immersion, feed-based delivery, and phage cocktails. In juvenile Apostichopus japonicus, feed-based phage administration has shown clear protective effects against Vibrio infection, while cocktail formulations are often more effective than single-phage treatments because they broaden host coverage and reduce the risk of resistance. These delivery approaches are most useful when matched to the pathogen, farming stage, and environmental conditions, making formulation and timing important for successful application [155,156].
Phage therapy has shown promising efficacy against Vibrio-mediated diseases in sea cucumbers (Apostichopus japonicus), particularly skin ulceration syndrome. Phage PVA1, isolated against Vibrio alginolyticus (a dominant pathogen in Shandong/Liaoning outbreaks), demonstrates strong lytic activity, achieving 90% bacterial clearance (MOI 10, 24 h) and improving juvenile survival 75–85% in immersion challenges [69]. Li Zhen’s dissertation characterized phage cocktails (PVS-1, PVS-2, PVS-3) targeting V. splendidus, reducing mortality from 80% to 20% in infected juveniles via coelomocyte activation (lysozyme ↑2.3-fold, SOD ↑1.8-fold; 48 h post-challenge [157]. Cao, who isolated vB_VneM_NB-1 against V. nereis, a coelomocyte apoptosis inducer, demonstrating 81% survival uplift (feed immersion, juveniles) and inhibition of caspase-3 activation (↓64%; burst size 215 PFU/cell, eclipse 25 min) [60].

9. Phage Control of Major Aquaculture Pathogens

Phage therapy in aquaculture has therapeutic potential, but its effectiveness depends on multiple interacting factors. The therapeutic value of phage therapy in aquaculture is shaped by an interaction among phage host range, bacterial resistance evolution, environmental stability, and formulation design rather than by lytic activity alone. Because temperate phages may contribute to lysogenic conversion or transduction, strictly lytic phages are generally preferred for therapeutic use in aquaculture. This preference reduces the risk of transferring virulence or antimicrobial-resistance genes to bacterial populations.

9.1. Analysis of the Necessity of Antibiotic Substitution in Aquaculture

Over the past decade, China’s aquaculture industry has experienced remarkable growth, becoming a vital part of the national economy. As of 2014, China’s aquaculture output accounted for more than 70% of the world’s total production, making it the only country where aquaculture output surpasses that of wild capture fisheries [158,159]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), declining yields in offshore fisheries due to overfishing were projected to make aquaculture supply half of global seafood demand by 2020 [1]. China remains the world’s largest producer of aquatic products, with total output reaching approximately 71.16 million tons in 2023, showing a steady increase from 68.66 million tons in 2022 [160].
According to the 2017 China Fisheries Yearbook, in 2016, China’s total aquatic product output was 69.01 million tons, with aquaculture contributing 51.42 million tons, representing 74.5% of total production. Marine products accounted for 34.9 million tons (50.6% of total output), of which marine aquaculture contributed 19.63 million tons, or 56.3% of marine production, with a production value of 314 billion yuan, a 4.67% increase year-on-year (China Fisheries Yearbook, 2017 [161]). The rapid expansion of aquaculture, especially marine aquaculture, is largely attributed to intensive, large-scale farming models. Antibiotics have played a crucial role in supporting this growth. In aquaculture production, antibiotics are used not only to prevent and control bacterial disease outbreaks but also to promote growth and improve feed efficiency [162]. However, the high-density nature of aquaculture systems increases the risk of widespread bacterial infections, which further elevates antibiotic usage.
While antibiotics have been instrumental in disease control, their overuse and misuse have led to significant problems. Many aquaculture operators lack adequate knowledge regarding proper dosages and usage standards, and insufficient regulatory oversight has allowed antibiotics to be abused as a “panacea” for disease prevention. This has resulted in environmental contamination, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and residues in aquatic products, posing serious food safety and public health risks [163]. Consequently, numerous Chinese aquatic product exports have been rejected by foreign customs due to antibiotic residues, causing substantial economic losses and damaging China’s international reputation.
The broad-spectrum use of antibiotics disrupts aquatic ecosystems and alters the normal gut microbiota of farmed species, ultimately reducing aquaculture efficiency. In July 2016, a CCTV investigation exposed antibiotic abuse at a sea cucumber farm in Dalian, resulting in the near extinction of offshore species, severe ecological damage, eutrophication, and nitrogen-phosphorus imbalances, highlighting the urgent need for sustainable aquaculture practices. In response, Chinese authorities have tightened regulations on antibiotic use, banning several substances, including ciprofloxacin, enrofloxacin, nitrofurans like furazolidone, and feed additives such as erythromycin and chloramphenicol [164]. These stricter policies and growing concerns over residues have intensified the demand for alternative antibacterial strategies. Historically, during the Cold War, Western antibiotic embargoes prompted the former Soviet Union to continue employing phage therapy against bacterial diseases. With the current global rise in antibiotic resistance and superbugs, phage therapy has regained international attention, with many countries advancing its application to control bacterial infections and achieving promising outcomes [165]. Consequently, implementing phage therapy in aquaculture, particularly sea cucumber farming, is of great practical importance for sustainable disease management and environmental conservation.

9.2. Phages for the Prevention and Control of Aquaculture Pathogens

Phage therapy involves using bacteriophage viruses that specifically infect and lyse bacteria to treat bacterial infections in humans and animals. It is a biological control method that leverages the natural antibacterial properties of phages [100]. In aquaculture, phage application to prevent and manage bacterial diseases offers several significant advantages. First, bacteriophages demonstrate high efficiency and exceptional host specificity, allowing them to selectively target pathogenic bacteria while sparing beneficial microbial communities. This specificity helps preserve the ecological balance and microecological stability within aquaculture environments [166]. Second, their capacity for self-replication within target bacteria means only a small initial phage dose is needed to achieve effective pathogen control, enhancing cost-effectiveness and efficiency [167]. Third, phages are naturally abundant, and phage isolates specific to most aquaculture pathogens can be readily obtained from water, sediments, and infected hosts [168]. Fourth, phage isolation and purification are relatively rapid, and their ease of storage and application facilitate practical use in aquatic systems [169]. Lastly, the small size and well-characterized genomes of phages allow thorough sequencing and toxicity testing, minimizing horizontal gene transfer risks and ensuring the safety of phage preparations [100]. Successful phage applications in aquaculture worldwide are summarized in Table 4, highlighting their potential against major pathogens.

9.3. Phage Control of Lactococcus garvieae

Lactococcus garvieae is a Gram-positive bacterium from the genus Lactococcus and a major pathogen in aquaculture, causing lactococcosis in species like yellowtail amberjack (Seriola quinqueradiata), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), gilthead sea bream, and European seabass [185,186]. The disease manifests through symptoms such as enteritis, abdominal hemorrhage, anorexia, melanosis, exophthalmia, and swim bladder ataxia, often resulting in mortality rates exceeding 50%, especially at elevated water temperatures [186,187]. As a conditional pathogen commonly found in aquaculture environments, L. garvieae outbreaks occur under stress or immunosuppression [188].
Researchers have isolated multiple lytic bacteriophages targeting L. garvieae, primarily from the PLgY and PLgW series [189]. Screening of 111 L. garvieae strains identified 14 phage types, with about 90% showing susceptibility to phages PLgW-1 and PLgW-3. These phages demonstrated short incubation periods (~1 h) and high titers (up to 1010 PFU/mL) within 5 h post-infection. Therapeutic trials revealed 100% survival in infected fish treated via intraperitoneal phage injection versus 10% in controls, while oral administration also significantly reduced mortality, with phages persisting in intestines and spleen up to 48 h at titers of 106 PFU/g [190]. These findings highlight the efficacy of L. garvieae-specific phages and inform optimal treatment strategies.
In addition to phage therapy, Lactobacillus gasseri is a probiotic bacterium that has been studied for beneficial effects in host health against L. garvieae [191]. The rising incidence of L. garvieae and related species like L. petauri in freshwater and marine farms, including recent European outbreaks beyond traditional hosts, underscores the urgent need for effective control methods. Current reliance on biosecurity, vaccination, and antibiotics is challenged by resistance and environmental concerns, positioning phage therapy as a promising alternative [192].

9.4. Phage Control of Pseudomonas proteus

Pseudomonas proteus is a Gram-negative bacterium from the genus Pseudomonas and is a causative agent of bacterial hemorrhagic septicemia in sweetfish (Plecoglossus altivelis), leading to considerable economic losses in aquaculture [193]. This disease affects sweetfish at all growth stages and is marked by an acute onset and high mortality. Challenge tests have revealed the bacterium’s strong infectivity, with a median lethal dose (LD50) as low as 101.2 CFU per fish, underscoring its virulence [194]. In a key study, two specific lytic bacteriophages targeting P. proteus were isolated from diseased sweetfish tissues and aquaculture pond water, indicating potential for phage therapy in managing this pathogen. The first phage, designated PPpW-3, was morphologically classified within the Myoviridae family and produced small plaques on bacterial lawns. The second, PPpW-4, belonged to the Podoviridae family (historically referred to as Brachyviridae) and formed larger plaques [193].

9.5. Phage Control of Vibrio harveyi

Vibrio harveyi is a Gram-negative bacterium commonly found in seawater and the intestines of marine animals, including shrimp. It is a major pathogen in shrimp hatcheries and culture ponds, causing luminous vibriosis and substantial economic losses [195]. Vinod et al. isolated a V. harveyi-specific lytic phage from a shrimp pond on India’s west coast, morphologically classified as a member of the Longicaudophage family. In controlled experiments, shrimp challenged with V. harveyi (105 CFU/mL) showed significantly improved survival rates when treated with phage cocktail (109 PFU/mL). Immediate phage treatment resulted in 80% survival, while a second dose after 24 h yielded 70% survival, compared to only 25% in untreated controls [195]. Scaling up, a pilot trial in commercial shrimp farms using 5000 L tanks with 35,000 shrimp each, maintained a phage titer of 2 × 108 PFU/L. The phage-treated group achieved an 86% survival rate, outperforming the antibiotic-treated group (40%) and untreated controls (17%) [195]. Similarly, Karunasagar et al. (2007) [196] identified four broad-host-range phages against V. harveyi, with Viha8 and Viha10 lysing approximately 70% of the tested strains. Their pilot study demonstrated survival rates of 86–88% in phage-treated groups, significantly higher than oxytetracycline (68%) and kanamycin (65%) controls [196].
Under controlled laboratory conditions, phage treatments have been shown to reduce bacterial burden and improve animal survival in several aquaculture models; in select studies, phage cocktails performed comparably to or exceeded antibiotic controls. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously, as outcomes vary considerably across host species, pathogen strains, phage doses, infection models, and experimental conditions. No generalized superiority of phage therapy over antibiotics can be assumed without context-specific evaluation. Further studies by Crothers-Stomps et al. (2010) isolated over ten V. harveyi-specific lytic phages exhibiting strong in vitro lytic activity [197]. The researcher isolated three phages (VHM1, VHM2, VHS1) and showed that phage application at 109 PFU/mL significantly improved shrimp survival [198]. Another study demonstrated the efficacy of two phages, vB_VhaS-a and vB_VhaS-tm, in protecting green-striped abalone from V. harveyi infection, increasing survival to 70% compared to 0% in untreated groups [199].
Recent advances include the development of phage cocktails that target multiple Vibrio species, enhancing therapeutic efficacy and reducing bacterial resistance. A nucleus-forming vibriophage cocktail reduced shrimp mortality by over 90% in Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections [200]. Broad-host-range phages such as vB_VhaS-R18L show promise due to their environmental stability and wide lytic spectrum [201]. Additionally, phage cocktails composed of vB_Vc_SrVc2 and vB_Vc_SrVc9 selectively eliminated Vibrio species in shrimp postlarvae, improving health and reducing pathogen load [202].
Although the above findings derive from shrimp, abalone, and oyster models, several principles are mechanistically transferable to sea cucumber aquaculture. First, phage cocktail strategies that target multiple Vibrio species are directly applicable to A. japonicus farming, where V. splendidus, V. alginolyticus, and V. harveyi frequently co-occur. Second, the demonstrated efficacy of feed-based delivery in shrimp provides a technical basis for similar approaches in sea cucumber, given the filter-feeding and sediment-grazing behavior of A. japonicus. However, direct extrapolation should be made cautiously: the immunological architecture of sea cucumbers (invertebrate, coelomocyte-based immunity) differs substantially from fish and shrimp, and phage survival in the unique chemical and microbial environment of sea cucumber culture ponds requires species-specific validation before therapeutic protocols from other aquaculture systems can be adopted.

9.6. Phage Control of Vibrio parahaemolyticus

Vibrio parahaemolyticus is a Gram-negative bacterium commonly found in coastal sediments and seafood such as fish, shrimp, and shellfish. It is a major pathogen in marine aquaculture, causing diseases in fish, clams, oysters, and prawns, leading to significant economic losses [203,204]. Additionally, V. parahaemolyticus is a recognized foodborne pathogen in humans, causing symptoms like vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and watery stools, raising serious food safety concerns [205]. Researchers isolated and characterized a lytic bacteriophage, VPp1, specific to V. parahaemolyticus, which exhibited a rapid incubation period of only 10 min, indicating potential for swift bacterial control in aquaculture disease management [206].
Further studies by Rong et al. (2014) [207] assessed the protective efficacy of phage VPp1 against V. parahaemolyticus infections in oysters under varying multiplicities of infection (MOI = 10, 1, and 0.1) and temperatures (12 °C, 16 °C, 20 °C, 22 °C). The optimal protection was observed at 16 °C with an MOI of 0.1, reducing V. parahaemolyticus by 2.35 to 2.76 log CFU/g in oyster tissues. Another investigation evaluated phage cocktails comprising three lytic phages (VP-1, VP-2, and VP-3), comparing single versus combined treatments [207]. Phage mixtures significantly improved bacterial lysis compared to single phages VP-1 or VP-2, but the potent lytic activity of VP-3 alone was comparable to the cocktail’s effect, suggesting that highly effective single phages may sometimes replace multi-phage formulations [157,208].

10. Prospects of Phage Application in Aquaculture

The future of phage application in aquaculture depends on improved phage formulation, better delivery systems, and more field-based validation under commercial conditions. Particular attention should be given to host-range limitations, resistance development, storage stability, and regulatory approval. For sea cucumber farming, phage therapy is most likely to succeed as part of an integrated disease-management strategy rather than as a stand-alone intervention:
  • For A. japonicus aquaculture, the host specificity of phages allows targeted control of pathogenic Vibrio species without disrupting the benthic microbial communities that support the sea cucumber’s filter-feeding and nutrient cycling. Field studies should monitor shifts in sediment microbiota following phage application to ensure ecological stability.
  • Feed-based phage delivery is the most practical route for grow-out systems, but phage stability in pelleted or dried feeds must be validated. Encapsulation technologies, such as alginate beads or microparticle formulations, have shown promise in preserving phage viability through feed processing and gastrointestinal transit in other aquaculture species and warrant testing in A. japonicus.
  • Phage self-replication within the water column may maintain therapeutic titers in immersion treatments, but the high organic load and microbial diversity of sea cucumber pond environments can reduce effective phage concentrations rapidly. Dosing strategies should account for phage adsorption to particulate matter and temperature-dependent inactivation.
  • Nursery systems, where juvenile A. japonicus are most vulnerable to Vibrio-associated skin ulceration, represent the highest-priority application site for phage therapy. Controlled nursery trials with validated phage cocktails targeting dominant local strains should be prioritized over grow-out trials, given the greater ease of dose control and the higher economic value per animal at this stage.
  • Phage performance in aquaculture is strongly influenced by environmental conditions, including temperature, pH, salinity, and organic load, which can alter phage stability and host adsorption efficiency. Results obtained under controlled laboratory conditions may not translate directly to field settings, where high biomass, variable water quality, and fluctuating pathogen loads can reduce phage performance.
  • Phages are environmentally safe, biodegradable, and leave no toxic residues. Unlike antibiotics, phages do not pose risks of accumulating harmful substances in the aquatic environment, making them a sustainable choice for managing bacterial diseases in aquaculture. Phage therapy offers targeted control of bacterial pathogens in aquaculture. Beyond pathogen removal, phage application may influence microbial community composition, ecological balance, and functional stability in aquaculture systems, with potential consequences for both disease control and ecosystem resilience. Although many studies report favorable outcomes, the evidence base remains heterogeneous, and comparisons across studies should account for differences in host species, pathogen strain, delivery route, phage dose, and environmental conditions. Beyond direct antibacterial therapy, phage platforms may be explored for antigen display and vaccine development in aquatic disease control.

11. Limitations of Phage Therapy

Despite the promise of phage therapy for sea cucumber aquaculture, several limitations remain to be addressed before broad-field application. The narrow host range of many phages means that a single phage may not be effective against all circulating bacterial strains, necessitating phage cocktails or strain-specific selection. Regulatory approval for phage-based products remains challenging because safety evaluation, manufacturing standards, and environmental release requirements differ across countries and regions. In addition, bacterial resistance to phages may emerge during repeated use, reducing long-term treatment efficacy and necessitating continuous monitoring of phage-host interactions [9]. Phage therapy has shown promising efficacy against aquaculture pathogens. Bacterial resistance to phages may emerge through receptor alteration, restriction-modification systems, abortive infection, or CRISPR-Cas defense, potentially reducing long-term therapeutic efficacy. Environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, salinity, and storage stability may also affect phage survival and activity in aquatic systems, potentially limiting performance under farm conditions. Delivery efficiency is another concern because oral, immersion, and injection routes differ in stability, uptake, and practical feasibility in large-scale aquaculture. Finally, regulatory approval, quality control, and standardization of phage preparations remain important barriers to practical implementation [209].

12. Conclusions

Phage therapy represents a promising and sustainable strategy for controlling bacterial diseases in sea cucumber aquaculture. The available evidence shows that phages can reduce pathogen load, improve survival, and support a move away from antibiotic dependence. However, broader adoption will require stronger field validation, better formulation, more standardized production, and clearer regulatory pathways. With continued research, phage therapy may become an important tool for safer and more sustainable sea cucumber farming.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/life16060989/s1, Table S1: Current classification of Caudovirales by ICTV 2023.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.Z. and Y.X.; methodology, W.Z.; software, W.Z.; validation, W.Z., X.S. and X.L.; formal analysis, W.Z.; investigation, B.M.; resources, L.W.; data curation, W.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, W.Z. and B.M.; writing—review and editing, Y.X., B.M. and X.S.; visualization, X.L.; supervision, Y.X.; project administration, Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing does not apply to this article, as it is based on previously published literature and publicly available sources.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used BioRender (Version 04) and Microsoft PowerPoint for figure creation and layout, as well as AI-based language tools for English editing and style refinement. The authors have carefully reviewed and revised all tool-generated content and take full responsibility for the final figures, text and interpretations presented in this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Guenard, R. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fagbohun, O.F.; Joseph, J.S.; Oriyomi, O.V.; Rupasinghe, H.P.V. Saponins of North Atlantic Sea Cucumber: Chemistry, Health Benefits, and Future Prospectives. Mar. Drugs 2023, 21, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Xue, Z.; Peng, T.; Wang, W. Classification and Immune Function of Coelomocytes in Echinoderms. Curr. Chinese Sci. 2024, 4, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fishery Administration Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; National Fisheries Technology Extension Center; China Society of Fisheries. 2024 China Fishery Statistical Yearbook; China Agricultural Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  5. Omont, A.; Spanopoulos-Zarco, M.; Pacheco-Vega, J.M.; Peña-Rodríguez, A. Evolving Challenges and Innovations in Sea Cucumber Aquaculture; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cui, H.; Cong, C.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Li, J.; Yang, H.; Li, S.; Xu, Y. Control of Edwardsiella tarda infection in turbot Scophthalmus maximus (L.) using phage vB_EtaM_ET-ABTNL-9. Aquac. Res. 2022, 53, 3010–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, L.; Yang, Q.; Hu, R.G.; Cong, W.; Li, S.; Kang, Y.H. The evaluation of bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aquaculture 2024, 588, 740925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Siyanbola, K.F.; Ejiohuo, O.; Ade-adekunle, O.A.; Adekunle, F.O.; Onyeaka, H.; Furr, C.-L.L.; Hodges, F.E.; Carvalho, P.; Oladipo, E.K. Bacteriophages: Sustainable and effective solution for climate-resilient agriculture. Sustain. Microbiol. 2024, 1, qvae025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hasan, M.; Ahn, J. Evolutionary Dynamics between Phages and Bacteria as a Possible Approach for Designing Effective Phage Therapies against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Kalatzis, P.G.; Castillo, D.; Katharios, P.; Middelboe, M. Bacteriophage interactions with marine pathogenic vibrios: Implications for phage therapy. Antibiotics 2018, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mishra, A.; Kim, H.S.; Kumar, R.; Srivastava, V. Advances in Vibrio-related infection management: An integrated technology approach for aquaculture and human health. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2024, 44, 1610–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yu, J.; Sawabe, T.; Yamano, R.; Koike, S.; Sakai, Y.; Mino, S. Inferring potential causative microbial factors of intestinal atrophic disease in the sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1225318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhao, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, Q.; Li, B. The influence of three antibiotics on the growth, intestinal enzyme activities, and immune response of the juvenile sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus selenka. Fish. Shellfish. Immunol. 2019, 84, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Market Growth Reports. Sea Cucumber Harvest Summary. 2024. Available online: https://www.marketgrowthreports.com/market-reports/sea-cucumber-market-118894 (accessed on 31 May 2026).
  15. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Sea Cucumber Harvest Summary, 2024–2025. 2025. Available online: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/commercial/southeast/2024-2025_seacucumber_summary.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2026).
  16. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Hu, Z.; Li, C.; Shao, Y.; Zhao, X.; Guo, M. Environmental factors promote pathogen-induced skin ulceration syndrome outbreak by readjusting the hindgut microbiome of Apostichopus japonicus. Aquaculture 2019, 507, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Adams, M.J.; Lefkowitz, E.J.; King, A.M.Q.; Harrach, B.; Harrison, R.L.; Knowles, N.J.; Kropinski, A.M.; Krupovic, M.; Kuhn, J.H.; Mushegian, A.R.; et al. 50 years of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses: Progress and prospects. Arch. Virol. 2017, 162, 1441–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nei, M.; Rooney, A.P. Concerted and Birth-and-Death Evolution of Multigene Families. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2005, 39, 121–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hatfull, G.F. Dark Matter of the Biosphere: The Amazing World of Bacteriophage Diversity. J. Virol. 2015, 89, 8107–8110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yang, H.; Ma, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, H.; Shen, W.; Chen, X. Transcription regulation mechanisms of bacteriophages: Recent advances and future prospects. Bioeng. Bugs 2014, 5, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wu, L.; McGrane, R.S.; Beattie, G.A. Light regulation of swarming motility in Pseudomonas syringae integrates signaling pathways mediated by a bacteriophytochrome and a LOV protein. MBio 2013, 4, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Xue, C. Advances in Sea Cucumber Processing Technology and Product Development; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  23. Asha, P.S. Taxonomy of sea cucumbers. In MARBIE 2 2024; MBEMD, ICAR-CMFRI: Kochi, India, 2024; pp. 146–154. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kalashnikov, V.Z. History of the fishery and aquaculture of the sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus in Russia. In The World of Sea Cucumbers; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 775–782. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sanjeewa, K.K.A.; Herath, K.H.I.N.M. Bioactive secondary metabolites in sea cucumbers and their potential use in the functional food industry. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2023, 26, 69–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, J.; Jia, J.; Teng, Y.; Wang, X.; Xia, X.; Song, S.; Zhu, B.; Xia, X. Polysaccharides from sea cucumber (Stichopus japonicus) synergize with anti-PD1 immunotherapy to reduce MC-38 tumor burden in mice through shaping the gut microbiome. Foods 2025, 14, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Janakiram, N.B.; Mohammed, A.; Bryant, T.; Lightfoot, S.; Collin, P.D.; Steele, V.E.; Rao, C.V. Improved innate immune responses by Frondanol A5, a sea cucumber extract, prevent intestinal tumorigenesis. Cancer Prev. Res. 2015, 8, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Che Ghazali, F. Medicinal bioactive compounds to functional foods from geochemical signatures marine biomasses: Sea cucumbers, macroalgae and crown of thorns biomasses. Life Sci. Med. Biomed. 2019, 3, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Maskur, M.; Sayuti, M.; Widyasari, F.; Haryo Bimo Setiarto, R. Bioactive Compound and Functional Properties of Sea Cucumbers as Nutraceutical Products. Rev. Agric. Sci. 2024, 12, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Prisa, D. Improving plant nutrition and growth through the use of minerals extracted from the sea on Aubergine and cucumber plants. GSC Adv. Res. Rev. 2024, 20, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Öztürk, F.; Gündüz, H. The effect of different drying methods on chemical composition, fatty acid, and amino acid profiles of sea cucumber (Holothuria tubulosa Gmelin, 1791). J. Food Process. Preserv. 2018, 42, e13723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Senadheera, T.R.L.; Dave, D.; Shahidi, F. Sea cucumber derived type i collagen: A comprehensive review. Mar. Drugs 2020, 18, 11–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Khotimchenko, Y. Pharmacological potential of sea cucumbers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Salindeho, N.; Nurkolis, F.; Gunawan WBen Handoko, M.N.; Samtiya, M.; Muliadi, R.D. Anticancer and anticholesterol attributes of sea cucumbers: An opinion in terms of functional food applications. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 986986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Siddiqui, R.; Boghossian, A.; Khan, N.A. Sea cucumber as a therapeutic aquatic resource for human health. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2022, 25, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hossain, A.; Dave, D.; Shahidi, F. Antioxidant Potential of Sea Cucumbers and Their Beneficial Effects on Human Health. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bordbar, S.; Anwar, F.; Saari, N. High-value components and bioactives from sea cucumbers for functional foods—A review. Mar. Drugs 2011, 9, 1761–1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Onohuean, H.; Agwu, E.; Nwodo, U.U. A Global Perspective of Vibrio Species and Associated Diseases: Three-Decade Meta-Synthesis of Research Advancement. Environ. Health Insights 2022, 16, 11786302221099406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sampaio, A.; Silva, V.; Poeta, P.; Aonofriesei, F. Vibrio spp.: Life Strategies, Ecology, and Risks in a Changing Environment. Diversity 2022, 14, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ina-Salwany, M.Y.; Al-saari, N.; Mohamad, A.; Mursidi, F.; Mohd-Aris, A.; Amal, M.N.A.; Kasai, H.; Mino, S.; Sawabe, T.; Zamri-Saad, M. Vibriosis in Fish: A Review on Disease Development and Prevention. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2019, 31, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Balasubramanian, B.; Liu, W.C.; Sattanathan, G. Aquaculture Science and Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yao, L.; He, P.; Xia, Z.; Li, J.; Liu, J. Typical Marine Ecological Disasters in China Attributed to Marine Organisms and Their Significant Insights. Biology 2024, 13, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, H.; Zheng, F.; Sun, X.; Hong, X.; Dong, S.; Wang, B.; Tang, X.; Wang, Y. Identification of the pathogens associated with skin ulceration and peristome tumescence in cultured sea cucumbers Apostichopus japonicus (Selenka). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2010, 105, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hickey, M.E.; Lee, J.L. A comprehensive review of Vibrio (Listonella) anguillarum: Ecology, pathology and prevention. Rev. Aquac. 2018, 10, 585–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Amaro, C.; Sanjuán, E.; Fouz, B.; Pajuelo, D.; Lee, C.-T.; Hor, L.-I.; Barrera, R. The Fish Pathogen Vibrio vulnificus Biotype 2: Epidemiology, Phylogeny, and Virulence Factors Involved in Warm-Water Vibriosis. Microbiol. Spectr. 2015, 3, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Xu, K.; Wang, Y.; Yang, W.; Cai, H.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, L. Strategies for Prevention and Control of Vibriosis in Asian Fish Culture. Vaccines 2023, 11, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Raharjo, H.M.; Budiyansah, H.; Mursalim, M.F.; Chokmangmeepisarn, P.; Sakulworakan, R.; Madyod, S.; Sewaka, M.; Sonthi, M.; Debnath, P.P.; Elayaraja, S.; et al. Distribution of Vibrionaceae in farmed Asian sea bass, Lates calcarifer in Thailand and their high prevalence of antimicrobial resistance. J. Fish. Dis. 2022, 45, 1355–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Haque, Z.F.; Islam, M.S.; Sabuj, A.A.M.; Pondit, A.; Sarkar, A.K.; Hossain, M.G.; Saha, S. Molecular Detection and Antibiotic Resistance of Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and Vibrio alginolyticus from Shrimp (Penaeus monodon) and Shrimp Environments in Bangladesh. Aquac. Res. 2023, 2023, 5436552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Reantaso, M.G.B.; Arthur, J.R. FAO Technical Assistance Efforts to Deal with Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Disease (AHPND) of Cultured Shrimp. Asian Fish. Sci. 2018, 31S, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Elgendy, M.Y.; Abdelsalam, M.; Kenawy, A.M.; Ali, S.E. Vibriosis outbreaks in farmed Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) caused by Vibrio mimicus and V. cholerae. Aquac. Int. 2022, 30, 2661–2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lee, K.K.; Liu, P.C.; Chuang, W.H. Pathogenesis of gastroenteritis caused by Vibrio carchariae in cultured marine fish. Mar. Biotechnol. 2002, 4, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Gouife, M.; Chen, S.; Huang, K.; Nawaz, M.; Jin, S.; Ma, R.; Wang, Y.; Xue, L.; Xie, J. Photobacterium damselae subsp. damselae in mariculture. Aquac. Int. 2022, 30, 1453–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Steinum, T.M.; Karataş, S.; Martinussen, N.T.; Meirelles, P.M.; Thompson, F.L.; Colquhoun, D.J. Multilocus sequence analysis of close relatives Vibrio anguillarum and Vibrio ordalii. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 5496–5504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Nørstebø, S.F.; Lotherington, L.; Landsverk, M.; Bjelland, A.M.; Sørum, H. Aliivibrio salmonicida requires O-antigen for virulence in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Microb. Pathog. 2018, 124, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, H.; Kim, S.M.; Park, S.I. Phenotypic and genetic characteristics of Vibrio ichthyoenteri isolated from the olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus of culturing size. J. Fish. Pathol. 2006, 19, 127–139. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kawai, M.; Ota, A.; Takemura, T.; Nakai, T.; Maruyama, F. Continuation and replacement of Vibrio cholerae non-O1 clonal genomic groups isolated from Plecoglossus altivelis fish in freshwaters. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 22, 4473–4484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Guo, L.; Zheng, H.; Lu, J.; Li, S.; Anchen, W.; Huang, M.; Fu, Y.; Zhuang, L. Extraction, identification, mechanism of action, and application of Hu Zhang (Polygonum cuspidatum) extracts against non-O1/O139 Vibrio cholerae in prawn storage. Lwt 2023, 185, 115135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Janecko, N.; Bloomfield, S.J.; Palau, R.; Mather, A.E. Whole genome sequencing reveals great diversity of Vibrio spp in prawns at retail. Microb. Genom. 2021, 7, 000647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dong, X.; Wang, H.; Zou, P.; Chen, J.; Liu, Z.; Wang, X.; Huang, J. Complete genome sequence of Vibrio campbellii strain 20130629003S01 isolated from shrimp with acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease. Gut Pathog. 2017, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cao, X.; Ye, P.; Li, C.; Ding, D.; Kerdsin, A.; Jiang, L. Vibrio phage vB_VneM_NB-1 inhibiting Vibrio nereis mediated coelomocyte apoptosis in Apostichopus japonicus. Aquaculture 2025, 597, 741916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shi, Y.; Liao, C.; Dai, F.; Zhang, Y.; Li, C.; Liang, W. Vibrio splendidus Fur regulates virulence gene expression, swarming motility, and biofilm formation, affecting its pathogenicity in Apostichopus japonicus. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 1207831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Su, J.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, T.; Ming, H.; Xie, Y.; Jin, Y.; Shi, T.; Fan, J. Prevalence, antibiotic and heavy metal resistance of Vibrio spp. isolated from the clam Meretrix meretrix at different ages in Geligang, Liaohe estuary in China. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 1071371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Huang, X.; Huang, K.; Chen, S.; Yin, X.; Pérez-Lorenzo, M.; Teira, E.; Fernández, E.; Wang, X. A Diverse Vibrio Community in Ría de Vigo (Northwestern Spain). Biology 2024, 13, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Oyster, L.; Richards, G.P.; Watson, M.A.; Madison, D.; Soffer, N.; Needleman, D.S.; Soroka, D.S.; Uknalis, J.; Baranzoni, G.M.; Church, K.M.; et al. Bacteriophages against Vibrio coralliilyticus and Vibrio tubiashii: Isolation, characterization, and remediation of larval oyster mortalities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87, e00008-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, C.M.; Wang, N.N.; Zhou, L.Y.; Wang, X.P.; Chen, G.J.; Du, Z.J. Vibrio albus sp. nov., isolated from marine sediment. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 1919–1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, X.; Huang, B.W.; Zheng, Y.D.; Xin, L.S.; Chen, W.B.; Yu, T.; Li, C.; Wang, C.-M.; Bai, C.-M. Identification and Characterization of Infectious Pathogens Associated with Mass Mortalities of Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Cultured in Northern China. Biology 2023, 12, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Song, M.; Zhang, S.; Xiao, K.; Zhang, X.; Li, C. Intestinal microbiota protects Vibrio splendidus induced intestinal epithelium damage by inhibiting apoptosis and promoting proliferation in Apostichopus japonicus. Aquaculture 2024, 588, 740924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wei, Z.; Zhao, L.; Wang, S.; Chang, L.; Shi, J.; Kong, X.; Li, M.; Lin, J.; Zhang, W.; Bao, Z.; et al. Paralytic shellfish toxins producing dinoflagellates cause dysbacteriosis in scallop gut microbial biofilms. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 273, 116146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, J.; Cao, Z.; Li, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, H.; Wu, F.; Jin, L.; Li, X.; Li, S.; Xu, Y. Effect of bacteriophages on Vibrio alginolyticus infection in the sea cucumber, Apostichopus japonicus (Selenka). J. World Aquac. Soc. 2015, 46, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wang, W.; Meng, X.; Wu, Z.; Fu, Y.; Li, X.; Chen, S. Isolation of a virulent Vibrio alginolyticus Bacteriophage and Its Application in Shrimp culture. Res. Sq. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yang, A.; Li, W.; Tao, Z.; Ye, H.; Xu, Z.; Li, Y.; Gao, Y.; Yan, X. Vibrio harveyi isolated from marine aquaculture species in eastern China and virulence to the large yellow croaker (Larimichthys crocea). J. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 131, 1710–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bai, Y.; Yang, Q.; Sun, Y.; Li, F.; Sun, J.; Yang, S.; Yang, D.; Peng, Z.; Yang, B.; Xu, J.; et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility and genomic characterization of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from aquatic foods in 15 provinces, China, 2020. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2024, 418, 110737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Xu, Z.; Jin, P.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Q.; Liu, X.; Shao, S.; Liu, Q. Isolation of a Virulent Aeromonas salmonicida subsp. masoucida masoucida bacteriophage and its application in phage therapy in turbot (Scophthalmus maximus). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87, e01468-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, M.; Wu, W.; You, W.; Huang, S.; Huang, M.; Luo, X.; Lu, Y.; Ke, C.; Xie, Q. A novel screening method for the detection of Pseudoalteromonas shioyasakiensis, an emerging opportunistic pathogen that caused the mass mortality of juvenile Pacific abalone (Haliotis discus hannai) during a record-breaking heat wave. Aquaculture 2021, 545, 737191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chai, A.L.; Ben, H.Y.; Guo, W.T.; Shi, Y.X.; Xie, X.W.; Li, L.; Li, B.-J. Quantification of Viable Cells of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in Tomato Seed Using Propidium Monoazide and a Real-Time PCR Assay. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 2225–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Diao, B.; Kan, B.; Wang, D. Distribution and genetic characteristics of SXT/R391 integrative conjugative elements in Shewanella spp. From China. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Purcell, S.W.; Conand, C.; Uthicke, S.; Byrne, M. Ecological Roles of Exploited Sea Cucumbers. In Oceanography and Marine Biology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; Volume 54, pp. 367–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Martins, Y.C.; Ribeiro-Gomes, F.L.; Daniel-Ribeiro, C.T. A short history of innate immunity. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2023, 118, e230023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chiaramonte, M.; Russo, R. The echinoderm innate humoral immune response. Ital. J. Zool. 2015, 82, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cooper, E.L. Advances in Comparative Immunology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  81. Tamilmani, T.; Biswas, A.; Mandal, A. Performance, immune response and blood biochemical traits of broiler chickens fed graded levels of dietary aflatoxin and ochratoxin combination. Indian. J. Anim. Res. 2021, 55, 704–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rathinam, R.B.; Iburahim, S.A.; Tripathi, G. The Immune system of Sea cucumbers: An evidential approach. Food Sci. Rep. 2020, 1, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  83. Moguel-Salazar, F.; Ortiz-Vázquez, E.; Rodríguez-Canul, R.; Olivera-Castillo, L. Antimicrobial activity of aqueous extracts of sea cucumber (Isostichopus badionotus) from the coast of Yucatan, Mexico. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2013, 7, 3621–3626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Haug, T.; Kjuul, A.K.; Styrvold, O.B.; Sandsdalen, E.; Olsen, Ø.M.; Stensvåg, K. Antibacterial activity in Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Echinoidea), Cucumaria frondosa (Holothuroidea), and Asterias rubens (Asteroidea). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2002, 81, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Caulier, G.; Jobson, S.; Wambreuse, N.; Borrello, L.; Delroisse, J.; Eeckhaut, I.; Mercier, A.; Hamel, J.-F. Vibratile cells and hemocytes in sea cucumbers—Clarifications and new paradigms. In The World of Sea Cucumbers; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 403–412. [Google Scholar]
  86. Li, Q.; Ren, Y.; Luan, L.; Zhang, J.; Qiao, G.; Wang, Y.; Ye, S.; Li, R. Localization and characterization of hematopoietic tissues in adult sea cucumber, Apostichopus japonicus. Fish. Shellfish. Immunol. 2019, 84, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fan, X.; Wu, K.; Tian, X.; Benjakul, S.; Li, Y.; Sang, X.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, J. Endogenous Proteases in Sea Cucumber (Apostichopus japonicas): Deterioration and Prevention during Handling, Processing, and Preservation. Foods 2024, 13, 2153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Xue, H.; Liang, B.; Wang, Y.; Gao, H.; Fang, S.; Xie, K.; Tan, J. The regulatory effect of polysaccharides on the gut microbiota and their effect on human health: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 270, 132170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rathinam, R.B.; Acharya, A.; Robina, A.J.; Banu, H.; Tripathi, G. The immune system of marine invertebrates: Earliest adaptation of animals. Comp. Immunol. Rep. 2024, 7, 200163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Canicatti, C. The lytic system of holothuria polii (Echinodermata): A review. Bolletino Zool. 1988, 55, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Inguglia, L.; Chiaramonte, M.; Arizza, V.; Turiák, L.; Vékey, K.; Drahos, L.; Pitonzo, R.; Avellone, G.; Di Stefano, V. Changes in the proteome of sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus coelomocytes in response to LPS injection into the body cavity. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Ahmmed, M.K.; Bhowmik, S.; Giteru, S.G.; Zilani, M.N.H.; Adadi, P.; Islam, S.S.; Kanwugu, O.N.; Haq, M.; Ahmmed, F.; Ng, C.C.W.; et al. An Update of Lectins from Marine Organisms: Characterization, Extraction Methodology, and Potential Biofunctional Applications. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Muehlenbachs, A. Viruses and Man: A History of Interactions; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  94. Farhan, R.; Kalim, F.; Hadi, F. Bacteriophage Therapy: Effective Antibiotic Replacer Against Emerging Ghost of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria. Int. J. Agric. Biosci. 2023, 1, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nicolas, M.; Trotereau, A.; Culot, A.; Moodley, A.; Atterbury, R.; Wagemans, J.; Lavigne, R.; Velge, P.; Schouler, C. Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Phage Collection against Avian-Pathogenic Escherichia coli. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e04296-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Myelnikov, D. An Alternative Cure: The Adoption and Survival of Bacteriophage Therapy in the USSR, 1922-1955. J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci. 2018, 73, 385–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Salmond, G.P.C.; Fineran, P.C. A century of the phage: Past, present and future. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 13, 777–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Ackermann, H.-W.; Ackermann, H.-W. The first phage electron micrographs. Bacteriophage 2011, 1, 225–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Summers, W.C. The Cold War and Phage Therapy: How Geopolitics Stalled Development of Viruses as Antibacterials. Annu. Rev. Virol. 2024, 11, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Harper, D.R.; Abedon, S.T.; Burrowes, B.H.; McConville, M.L. Bacteriophages: Biology, Technology, Therapy; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2021; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  101. Kortright, K.E.; Chan, B.K.; Koff, J.L.; Turner, P.E. Phage Therapy: A Renewed Approach to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Cell Host Microbe 2019, 25, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sarhan, W.A.; Azzazy, H.M.E. Phage approved in food, why not as a therapeutic? Expert. Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 2015, 13, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Strużyńska, L.; Dąbrowska-Bouta, B.; Sulkowski, G.; Rafałowska, U. A glycogen synthase kinase-3 inhibitor (TDZD-8) attenuates liver and neuromuscular injury caused by burns in rats. J. Neurochem. 2003, 85, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Jankowiak, M.; Rój, J. Is Structural Equation Modeling Applicable in a Population Health Determinants Assessment? An Experience from the European Union. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0337042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Onallah, H.; Hazan, R.; Nir-Paz, R.; Brownstein, M.J.; Fackler, J.R.; Horne, B.A.; Hopkins, R.; Basu, S.; Yerushalmy, O.; Alkalay-Oren, S.; et al. Refractory Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections treated with phage PASA16: A compassionate use case series. Med 2023, 4, 600–611.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lammens, E.; Volke, D.C.; Schroven, K.; Voet, M.; Kerremans, A.; Lavigne, R.; Hendrix, H. A SEVA-based, CRISPR-Cas3-assisted genome engineering approach for Pseudomonas with efficient vector curing. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e02707-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jaglan, A.B.; Anand, T.; Verma, R.; Vashisth, M.; Virmani, N.; Bera, B.C.; Vaid, R.K.; Tripathi, B.N. Tracking the phage trends: A comprehensive review of applications in therapy and food production. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 993990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ginn, S.L.; Mandwie, M.; Alexander, I.E.; Edelstein, M.; Abedi, M.R. Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2023—An update. J. Gene Med. 2024, 26, e3721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Verbeken, G.; Pirnay, J.P. European regulatory aspects of phage therapy: Magistral phage preparations. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2022, 52, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fenner, F. The classification of viruses; why, when, and how. Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 1974, 52, 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ackermann, H.W. Tailed bacteriophages: The order caudovirales. Adv. Virus Res. 1998, 51, 135–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ohshima, K.; Mitoma, S.; Gibbs, A.J. The genetic diversity of narcissus viruses related to turnip mosaic virus blur arbitrary boundaries used to discriminate potyvirus species. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0190511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Turner, D.; Kropinski, A.M.; Adriaenssens, E.M. A roadmap for genome-based phage taxonomy. Viruses 2021, 13, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ackermann, H.W. 5500 Phages examined in the electron microscope. Arch. Virol. 2007, 152, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rohwer, F.; Edwards, R. The phage proteomic tree: A genome-based taxonomy for phage. J. Bacteriol. 2002, 184, 4529–4535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bao, Y.; Zhang, T.; Guo, X.; Zhang, X.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, M. Fast and Accurate Taxonomic Classification for Viral Genomes with VISTA. Res. Sq. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Dion, M.B.; Oechslin, F.; Moineau, S. Phage diversity, genomics and phylogeny. Geography 2004, 24, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Huddleston, J.E. Rulers and sensors in Chlamydomonas. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 9, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Arisaka, F.; Yap, M.L.; Kanamaru, S.; Rossmann, M.G. Molecular assembly and structure of the bacteriophage T4 tail. Biophys. Rev. 2016, 8, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Fokine, A.; Rossmann, M.G. Molecular architecture of tailed double-stranded DNA phages. Bacteriophage 2014, 4, e28281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Atanasova, N.S.; Senčilo, A.; Pietilä, M.K.; Roine, E.; Oksanen, H.M.; Bamford, D.H. Chapter One—Comparison of Lipid-Containing Bacterial and Archaeal Viruses. In Advances in Virus Research; Maramorosch, K., Mettenleiter, T.C., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–61. [Google Scholar]
  122. Podgorski, J.M.; Freeman, K.; Gosselin, S.; Huet, A.; Conway, J.F.; Bird, M.; Grecco, J.; Patel, S.; Jacobs-Sera, D.; Hatfull, G.; et al. A structural dendrogram of the actinobacteriophage major capsid proteins provides important structural insights into the evolution of capsid stability. Structure 2023, 31, 282–294.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. De Smet, J.; Hendrix, H.; Blasdel, B.G.; Danis-Wlodarczyk, K.; Lavigne, R. Pseudomonas predators: Understanding and exploiting phage–host interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Clokie, M.R.J.; Millard, A.D.; Letarov, A.V.; Heaphy, S. Phages in nature. Bacteriophage 2011, 1, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Brüssow, H.; Canchaya, C.; Hardt, W.-D. Phages and the Evolution of Bacterial Pathogens: From Genomic Rearrangements to Lysogenic Conversion. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2004, 68, 560–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Noman, N.; Inniss, M.; Iba, H.; Way, J.C. Pulse detecting genetic circuit—A new design approach. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Zupancic, M.L.; Tran, H.; Hofmeister, A.E.M. Chromosomal organization governs the timing of cell type-specific gene expression required for spore formation in Bacillus subtilis. Mol. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 1471–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Weinbauer, M.G. Ecology of prokaryotic viruses. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2004, 28, 127–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Campbell, A. Prophage insertion sites. Res. Microbiol. 2003, 154, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Hyman, P.; Abedon, S.T. Chapter 7—Bacteriophage Host Range and Bacterial Resistance. In Advances in Applied Microbiology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 217–248. [Google Scholar]
  131. Chaturongakul, S.; Ounjai, P. Phage-host interplay: Examples from tailed phages and Gram-negative bacterial pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Surendran Nair, M.; Amalaradjou, M.A.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Chapter One—Antivirulence Properties of Probiotics in Combating Microbial Pathogenesis. In Advances in Applied Microbiology; Sariaslani, S., Gadd, G.M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  133. Balamurugan, V.; Varghese, B.; Sowjanya Kumari, S.; Vinod Kumar, K.; Muthuchelvan, D.; Nagalingam, M.; Roy, P. Avidin-Biotin recombinant antigen capture ELISA for the detection of peste des petits ruminants virus in the clinical specimens of sheep and goats. J. Virol. Methods 2021, 291, 114103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Szczuka, E.; Szumała-Ka̧kol, A.; Siuda, A.; Kaznowski, A. Clonal analysis of Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated in obstetric-gynaecological hospital. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2010, 59, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Chen, Z.; Sun, L.; Zhang, Z.; Fokine, A.; Padilla-Sanchez, V.; Hanein, D.; Jiang, W.; Rossmann, M.G.; Rao, V.B. Cryo-EM structure of the bacteriophage T4 isometric head at 3.3-Å resolution and its relevance to the assembly of icosahedral viruses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E8184–E8193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Nunes-Alves, C. Host response: New LPS receptors discovered. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2014, 12, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Logue, S.E.; Martin, S.J. Caspase activation cascades in apoptosis. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2008, 36, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Łobocka, M.; Dąbrowska, K.; Górski, A. Engineered Bacteriophage Therapeutics: Rationale, Challenges and Future. BioDrugs 2021, 35, 255–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Shi, C.; Li, C.; Li, Q.; Linhardt, R.J. Bacteriophage T7 transcription system: An enabling tool in synthetic biology. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018, 36, 2129–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Motwani, T.; Lokareddy, R.K.; Dunbar, C.A.; Cortines, J.R.; Jarrold, M.F.; Cingolani, G.; Teschke, C.M. A viral scaffolding protein triggers portal ring oligomerization and incorporation during procapsid assembly. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kizziah, J.L.; Manning, K.A.; Dearborn, A.D.; Wall, E.A.; Klenow, L.; Hill, R.L.L.; Spilman, M.S.; Stagg, S.M.; Christie, G.E.; Dokland, T. Cleavage and structural transitions during maturation of Staphylococcus aureus bacteriophage 80α and SaPI1 capsids. Viruses 2017, 9, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Oliveira, L.; Tavares, P.; Alonso, J.C. Headful DNA packaging: Bacteriophage SPP1 as a model system. Virus Res. 2013, 173, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Rao, V.B.; Fokine, A.; Fang, Q.; Shao, Q. Bacteriophage T4 Head: Structure, Assembly, and Genome Packaging. Viruses 2023, 15, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Rao, V.B.; Feiss, M. Mechanisms of DNA Packaging by Large Double-Stranded DNA Viruses. Annu. Rev. Virol. 2015, 2, 351–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Leiman, P.G.; Shneider, M.M. Contractile Tail Machines of Bacteriophages. In Viral Molecular Machines; Rossmann, M.G., Rao, V.B., Eds.; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 726, pp. 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Wang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Wang, X.; Lin, Y.; Xu, G.; Yang, F.; Ni, K. Insights into the phage community structure and potential function in silage fermentation. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 358, 120837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Cahill, J.; Young, R. Chapter Two—Phage Lysis: Multiple Genes for Multiple Barriers. In Advances in Virus Research; Kielian, M., Mettenleiter, T.C., Roossinck, M.J., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 33–70. [Google Scholar]
  148. Naturwissenschaften, D.D. TcdE: The Silent Member in the Pathogenicity Locus of Clostridium difficile? Ph.D. Thesis, Leibniz University Hannover, Hanover, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  149. Okegbe, C.; Price-Whelan, A.; Dietrich, L.E.P. Redox-driven regulation of microbial community morphogenesis. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2014, 18, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Dąbrowska, K. Phage therapy: What factors shape phage pharmacokinetics and bioavailability? Systematic and critical review. Med. Res. Rev. 2019, 39, 2000–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Sanger, F.; Nicklen, S.; Coulson, A.R. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1977, 74, 5463–5467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Ofir, G.; Sorek, R. Contemporary Phage Biology: From Classic Models to New Insights. Cell 2018, 172, 1260–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Warwick-Dugdale, J.; Solonenko, N.; Moore, K.; Chittick, L.; Gregory, A.C.; Allen, M.J.; Sullivan, M.B.; Temperton, B. Long-read viral metagenomics captures abundant and microdiverse viral populations and their niche-defining genomic islands. PeerJ 2019, 2019, e6800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Buchholz, H.H.; Bolaños, L.M.; Bell, A.G.; Michelsen, M.L.; Allen, M.J.; Temperton, B. Novel pelagiphage isolate Polarivirus skadi is a polar specialist that dominates SAR11-associated bacteriophage communities at high latitudes. ISME J. 2023, 17, 1660–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Klinnert, S.; Chemnitzer, A.; Rusert, P.; Metzner, K.J. Systematic HIV-1 promoter targeting with CRISPR/dCas9-VPR reveals optimal region for activation of the latent provirus. J. Gen. Virol. 2022, 103, 001754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Wang, W.; Xue, Z.; Miao, J.; Cai, M.; Zhang, C.; Li, T.; Zhang, B.; Tyler, B.M.; Liu, X. Pcmuorp1, an oxathiapiprolin-resistance gene, functions as a novel selection marker for phytophthora transformation and crispr/cas9 mediated genome editing. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Li, Z.; Li, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, L.; Cao, Z.; Xu, Y. Use of phages to control Vibrio splendidus infection in the juvenile sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus. Fish Shellfish. Immunol. 2016, 54, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Kauffman, K.M.; Hussain, F.A.; Yang, J.; Arevalo, P.; Brown, J.M.; Chang, W.K.; VanInsberghe, D.; Elsherbini, J.; Sharma, R.S.; Cutler, M.B.; et al. A major lineage of non-tailed dsDNA viruses as unrecognized killers of marine bacteria. Nature 2018, 554, 118–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Kiran, K.J.; Saravanan, P. Mariculture: A Sustainable Solution to India’s Growing Seafood Demand. World Aquac. 2024, 55, 60–64. Available online: https://was.org/Magazine/2024/04/60/ (accessed on 31 May 2026).
  160. Yang, W. Dynamic Trends in Aquatic Product Supply and Consumption in China: Implications for Sustainable Diets and Environmental Impact Reduction. Foods 2025, 14, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Fishery Administration Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. China Fisheries Yearbook, 2017; China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  162. Mo, W.Y.; Chen, Z.; Leung, H.M.; Leung, A.O.W. Application of veterinary antibiotics in China’s aquaculture industry and their potential human health risks. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 8978–8989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Wu, J.; Ye, F.A.N.; Qu, J.; Dai, Z. Insight into the Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria Isolated from Popular Aquatic Products Collected in Zhejiang, China. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2023, 72, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Li, M.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, M.; He, L.; Liu, L.; Tang, Q. China eco-wisdom: A review of sustainability of agricultural heritage systems on aquatic-ecological conservation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Lin, D.M.; Koskella, B.; Lin, H.C. Phage therapy: An alternative to antibiotics in the age of multi-drug resistance. World J. Gastrointest. Pharmacol. Ther. 2017, 8, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Pena, R.T.; Blasco, L.; Ambroa, A.; González-Pedrajo, B.; Fernández-García, L.; López, M.; Bleriot, I.; Bou, G.; García-Contreras, R.; Wood, T.K.; et al. Relationship between quorum sensing and secretion systems. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Ansari, F.; Nagar, V. Aeromonas Biocontrol Using Bacteriophages: A Promising Strategy. In Aeromonas—A Ubiquitous Bacterium That Infects Humans and Animals; Figueras, M.J., Fernández-Bravo, A., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  168. Dubey, S.; Singh, A.; Kumar, B.T.N.; Singh, N.K.; Tyagi, A. Isolation and Characterization of Bacteriophages from Inland Saline Aquaculture Environments to Control Vibrio parahaemolyticus Contamination in Shrimp. Indian. J. Microbiol. 2021, 61, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Fathizadeh, H.; Taghizadeh, S.; Safari, R.; Khiabani, S.S.; Babak, B.; Hamzavi, F.; Ganbarov, K.; Esposito, S.; Zeinalzadeh, E.; Dao, S.; et al. Study presence of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) in the sweat of patients infected with COVID-19. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 149, 104556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Atsuoka, S.M.; Arai, N.S.; Uratomi, S.K.; No, K.O.; Oma, A.N. Individual types of ion channels play a unique role in. Jpn. J. Physiol. 2003, 53, 105–123. [Google Scholar]
  171. Kawanishi, M.; Yoshida, T.; Kijima, M.; Yagyu, K.; Nakai, T.; Okada, S.; Endo, A.; Murakami, M.; Suzuki, S.; Morita, H. Characterization of Lactococcus garvieae isolated from radish and broccoli sprouts that exhibited a KG+ phenotype, lack of virulence and absence of a capsule. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 44, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Oakey, H.J.; Owens, L. A new bacteriophage, VHML, isolated from a toxin-producing strain of Vibrio harveyi in tropical Australia. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 89, 702–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Park, S.C.; Shimamura, I.; Fukunaga, M.; Mori, K.I.; Nakai, T. Isolation of bacteriophages specific to a fish pathogen, Pseudomonas plecoglossicida, as a candidate for disease control. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 1416–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Imbeault, S.; Parent, S.; Lagacé, M.; Uhland, C.F.; Blais, J. Using Bacteriophages to Prevent Furunculosis Caused by Aeromonas salmonicida in Farmed Brook Trout. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2006, 18, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Le, T.D. Bacteriophage and Ozone-Nanobubble Based Approaches for Combating Multidrug-Resistant Aeromonas hydrophila in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Culture System. Ph.D. Thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 2020. Available online: https://digital.car.chula.ac.th/chulaetd/424/ (accessed on 31 May 2026).
  176. Tyagi, A.; Khushiramani, R.; Karunasagar, I.; Karunasagar, I. Antivibrio activity of recombinant lysozyme expressed from black tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture 2007, 272, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Verner-Jeffreys, D.W.; Algoet, M.; Pond, M.J.; Virdee, H.K.; Bagwell, N.J.; Roberts, E.G. Furunculosis in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) is not readily controllable by bacteriophage therapy. Aquaculture 2007, 270, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Matsuoka, S.; Hashizume, T.; Kanzaki, H.; Iwamoto, E.; Park, S.C.; Yoshida, T.; Nakai, T. Phage therapy against β-hemolytic streptococcicosis of Japanese flounder Paralichthys olivaceus. Fish. Pathol. 2007, 42, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Citarasu, T.; Babu, M.M.; Yilmaz, E. Alternative medications in shrimp health management for improved production. Aquaculture 2022, 561, 738695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Çağatay, I. Bacteriophage applications in aquaculture. Isr. J. Aquac.—Bamidgeh 2023, 75, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Mahmoud, M.M.; Nakai, T. Isolation and Characterization of Edwardsiella Ictauri-Specific Bacteriophages. Assiut Vet. Med. J. 2019, 65, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Kim, J.H.; Gomez, D.K.; Nakai, T.; Park, S.C. Isolation and identification of bacteriophages infecting ayu Plecoglossus altivelis altivelis specific Flavobacterium psychrophilum. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 140, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Campbell, V.M.; Chouljenko, A.; Hall, S.G. Depuration of live oysters to reduce Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus: A review of ecology and processing parameters. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2022, 21, 3480–3506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Li, Z.; Ren, H.; Li, Q.; Murtaza, B.; Li, X.; Zhang, J.; Xu, Y. Exploring the effects of phage cocktails in preventing Vibrio infections in juvenile sea cucumber (Apostichopus japonicus) farming. Aquaculture 2020, 515, 734599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Ghasemi, S.M.; Bouzari, M.; Emtiazi, G. Preliminary characterization of Lactococcus garvieae bacteriophage isolated from wastewater as a potential agent for biological control of lactococcosis in aquaculture. Aquac. Int. 2014, 22, 1469–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Esposito, G.; Bignami, G.; Colussi, S.; Pastorino, P.; Bondavalli, F.; Fioravanti, M.; Bozzetta, E.; Acutis, P.; Valentino, A.; Rizzi, R.; et al. Expanding Horizons: The First Reported Outbreak of Piscine Lactococcosis in Farmed Gilthead Seabream Sparus aurata in the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea. J. Fish. Dis. 2025, 48, e14121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Pastorino, P.; Alonso, A.I.V.; Colussi, S.; Cavazza, G.; Menconi, V.; Mugetti, D.; Righetti, M.; Barbero, R.; Zuccaro, G.; Fernández-Garayzábal, J.F.; et al. A summer mortality outbreak of lactococcosis by Lactococcus garvieae in a raceway system affecting farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Animals 2019, 9, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Meyburgh, C.M.; Bragg, R.R.; Boucher, C.E. Lactococcus garvieae: An emerging bacterial pathogen of fish. Dis. Aquat. Organ 2017, 123, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Hoai, T.D.; Nishiki, I.; Fujiwara, A.; Yoshida, T.; Nakai, T. Comparative genomic analysis of three lytic Lactococcus garvieae phages, novel phages with genome architecture linking the 936 phage species of Lactococcus lactis. Mar. Genom. 2019, 48, 100696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Vendrell, D.; Balcázar, J.L.; Ruiz-Zarzuela, I.; de Blas, I.; Gironés, O.; Múzquiz, J.L. Lactococcus garvieae in fish: A review. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2006, 29, 177–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Gunyakti, A.; Asan-Ozusaglam, M. Investigation of the potential use of Lactobacillus gasseri originated from human breast milk as food additive. Lwt 2018, 93, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Malik, S.; Ahsan, O.; Muhammad, K. Phagetherapy updates: New frontiers against antibiotic resistance. Eur. J. Microbiol. Immunol. 2025, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Samanidou, V.F.; Evaggelopoulou, E.N. Analytical strategies to determine antibiotic residues in fish. J. Sep. Sci. 2007, 30, 2549–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Tamburini, E.; Doni, L.; Lussu, R.; Meloni, F.; Cappai, G.; Carucci, A.; Casalone, E.; Mastromei, G.; Vitali, F. Impacts of Anthropogenic Pollutants on Benthic Prokaryotic Communities in Mediterranean Touristic Ports. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Vinod, M.G.; Shivu, M.M.; Umesha, K.R.; Rajeeva, B.C.; Krohne, G.; Karunasagar, I.; Karunasagar, I. Isolation of Vibrio harveyi bacteriophage with a potential for biocontrol of luminous vibriosis in hatchery environments. Aquaculture 2006, 255, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Karunasagar, I.; Shivu, M.M.; Girisha, S.K.; Krohne, G.; Karunasagar, I. Biocontrol of pathogens in shrimp hatcheries using bacteriophages. Aquaculture 2007, 268, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Crothers-Stomps, C.; Høj, L.; Bourne, D.G.; Hall, M.R.; Owens, L. Isolation of lytic bacteriophage against Vibrio harveyi. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 1744–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Stalin, N.; Srinivasan, P. Characterization of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and its specific phage from shrimp pond in Palk Strait, South East coast of India. Biologicals 2016, 44, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Li, X.; Liang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yao, Y.; Chen, X.; Shao, A.; Lu, L.; Dang, H. Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Vibrio natriegens—Infecting Phage and Its Potential Therapeutic Application in Abalone Aquaculture. Biology 2022, 11, 1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Thammatinna, K.; Sinprasertporn, A.; Naknaen, A.; Samernate, T.; Nuanpirom, J.; Chanwong, P.; Somboonwiwat, K.; Pogliano, J.; Sathapondecha, P.; Thawonsuwan, J.; et al. Nucleus-forming vibriophage cocktail reduces shrimp mortality in the presence of pathogenic bacteria. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 17844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Cai, L.; Tian, Y.; Li, Z.; Yang, Y.; Ai, C.; Zhang, R. A broad-host-range lytic phage vB_VhaS-R18L as a candidate against vibriosis. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1191157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Lomelí-Ortega, C.O.; Barajas-Sandoval, D.R.; Martínez-Villalobos, J.M.; Jaramillo, C.R.; Chávez, E.M.; Gómez-Gil, B.; Balcázar, J.L.; Quiroz-Guzmán, E. A Broad-Host-Range Phage Cocktail Selectively and Effectively Eliminates Vibrio Species from Shrimp Aquaculture Environment. Microb. Ecol. 2023, 86, 1443–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  204. Peng, Y.; Jin, Y.; Lin, H.; Wang, J.; Khan, M.N. Application of the VPp1 bacteriophage combined with a coupled enzyme system in the rapid detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus. J. Microbiol. Methods 2014, 98, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States-Major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Mengzhe, L.I.; Yanqiu, J.I.N.; Hong, L.I.N.; Wang, J.; Jiang, X. Complete genome of a novel lytic Vibrio parahaemolyticus phage VPp1 and characterization of its endolysin for antibacterial activities. J. Food Prot. 2018, 81, 1117–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Rong, R.; Lin, H.; Wang, J.; Khan, M.N.; Li, M. Reductions of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in oysters after bacteriophage application during depuration. Aquaculture 2014, 418–419, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Mateus, L.; Costa, L.; Silva, Y.J.; Pereira, C.; Cunha, A.; Almeida, A. Efficiency of phage cocktails in the inactivation of Vibrio in aquaculture. Aquaculture 2014, 424–425, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Holtappels, D.; Alfenas-Zerbini, P.; Koskella, B. Drivers and consequences of bacteriophage host range. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2023, 47, fuad038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. External morphology and anatomical overview of Apostichopus japonicus, with emphasis on tissue compartments (body wall, coelomic cavity, gut) relevant to bacterial pathogen entry and phage delivery. The inset highlights the high protein-to-lipid composition that characterizes the species’ commercial and nutritional value [25,26,27]. (Bio render Version 04).
Figure 1. External morphology and anatomical overview of Apostichopus japonicus, with emphasis on tissue compartments (body wall, coelomic cavity, gut) relevant to bacterial pathogen entry and phage delivery. The inset highlights the high protein-to-lipid composition that characterizes the species’ commercial and nutritional value [25,26,27]. (Bio render Version 04).
Life 16 00989 g001
Figure 2. Workflow for phage therapy application in Apostichopus japonicus aquaculture (Bio render).
Figure 2. Workflow for phage therapy application in Apostichopus japonicus aquaculture (Bio render).
Life 16 00989 g002
Figure 3. Life cycle of lytic phages.
Figure 3. Life cycle of lytic phages.
Life 16 00989 g003
Table 4. Phage applications targeting key aquaculture pathogens.
Table 4. Phage applications targeting key aquaculture pathogens.
Aquaculture SpeciesDisease NamePathogenPhage (s)Phage SourceReferences
Japanese Eel
(Anguilla Japonica)
EdwardsiellosisEdwardsiella tardaET-1Aquaculture pond water[170]
Yellowtail Amberjack (Seriola quinqueradiata)LactococcosisLactococcus garvieaeLong-tail phages PLgY-16, PLgY-30, PLgW-1Natural seawater and diseased fish wastewater[171]
Giant Tiger Prawn (Penaeus monodon)VibriosisVibrio harveyiMyovirus VHLMAquaculture wastewater[172]
Sweetfish
(Plecoglossus altivelis)
Hemorrhagic ascites diseasePseudomonas plecoglossicidaPhage cocktail PPpW-4, PPpW-3Diseased fish and aquaculture wastewater[173]
Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)FurunculosisAeromonas salmonicida
HER1107
Phage HER110Aquaculture wastewater[174]
Giant Tiger Prawn (Penaeus monodon)VibriosisVibrio harveyiLong-tail phageShrimp farms, west coast of India[175]
Giant Tiger Prawn (Penaeus monodon)VibriosisVibrio harveyiMultiple long-tail phagesOyster tissues and shrimp farm water[176]
Atlantic Salmon
(Salmo salar)
FurunculosisAeromonas salmonicida 78027Phage cocktail O, R, B [177]
Olive Flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus)StreptococcosisStreptococcus iniaeMultiple phagesFishpond water[178]
Pacific White Shrimp (Penaeus Vanmamei)VibriosisVibrio harveyi6 long-tail and 1 myovirus phage cocktailShrimp farms and hatchery waters, India[179]
Catfish (Clarias batrachus)Columnaris diseaseFlavobacterium columnare9 phages FCP1 to FCP9Aquaculture water and sediment[180]
Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)Enteric septicemiaEdwardsiella ictaluriPhages eiDWF, eiAU, eiMSLSAquaculture water[181]
Plecoglossus altivelisBCWDFlavobacterium psychrophilumPFpW-3, PFpC-Y, PFpW-6, PFpW-7, PFpW-8Ayu breeding pond water[182]
Oyster (Crassostrea gigas)Bacterial diseaseVibrio parahaemolyticusPhage VPp1Aquatic market water[183]
Japanese Sea Cucumber (Apostichopus japonicus)Skin ulcer diseaseVibrio alginolyticusPhage PVA1Aquaculture wastewater and sediment[184]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, W.; Sun, X.; Murtaza, B.; Li, X.; Wang, L.; Xu, Y. Phage Therapy for Sustainable Sea Cucumber Aquaculture. Life 2026, 16, 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/life16060989

AMA Style

Zhang W, Sun X, Murtaza B, Li X, Wang L, Xu Y. Phage Therapy for Sustainable Sea Cucumber Aquaculture. Life. 2026; 16(6):989. https://doi.org/10.3390/life16060989

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Wan, Xiaowen Sun, Bilal Murtaza, Xiaoyu Li, Lili Wang, and Yongping Xu. 2026. "Phage Therapy for Sustainable Sea Cucumber Aquaculture" Life 16, no. 6: 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/life16060989

APA Style

Zhang, W., Sun, X., Murtaza, B., Li, X., Wang, L., & Xu, Y. (2026). Phage Therapy for Sustainable Sea Cucumber Aquaculture. Life, 16(6), 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/life16060989

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop