Next Article in Journal
Bacteriophages as Potential Tools for Detection and Control of Salmonella spp. in Food Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
Review on Immersion Vaccines for Fish: An Update 2019
Previous Article in Journal
Multiple Lineages of Usutu Virus (Flaviviridae, Flavivirus) in Blackbirds (Turdus merula) and Mosquitoes (Culex pipiens, Cx. modestus) in the Czech Republic (2016–2019)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 7
Issue 11
10.3390/microorganisms7110569
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of Fish Vaccine Development Strategies: Conventional Methods and Modern Biotechnological Approaches

by
Jie Ma
1,2,
Timothy J. Bruce
1,2,
Evan M. Jones
1,2 and
Kenneth D. Cain
1,2,*
1
Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
2
Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2019, 7(11), 569; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7110569
Submission received: 25 October 2019 / Revised: 10 November 2019 / Accepted: 14 November 2019 / Published: 16 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fish Vaccination)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fish immunization has been carried out for over 50 years and is generally accepted as an effective method for preventing a wide range of bacterial and viral diseases. Vaccination efforts contribute to environmental, social, and economic sustainability in global aquaculture. Most licensed fish vaccines have traditionally been inactivated microorganisms that were formulated with adjuvants and delivered through immersion or injection routes. Live vaccines are more efficacious, as they mimic natural pathogen infection and generate a strong antibody response, thus having a greater potential to be administered via oral or immersion routes. Modern vaccine technology has targeted specific pathogen components, and vaccines developed using such approaches may include subunit, or recombinant, DNA/RNA particle vaccines. These advanced technologies have been developed globally and appear to induce greater levels of immunity than traditional fish vaccines. Advanced technologies have shown great promise for the future of aquaculture vaccines and will provide health benefits and enhanced economic potential for producers. This review describes the use of conventional aquaculture vaccines and provides an overview of current molecular approaches and strategies that are promising for new aquaculture vaccine development.

1. Introduction

Despite multiple approaches to innovative therapy, fish diseases remain a major economic issue in commercial aquaculture worldwide. Although antibiotics or chemotherapeutics may be implemented for disease treatment, there are some clear drawbacks, such as drug resistance issues and safety concerns [1]. Vaccination, as an effective method of preventing a wide range of bacterial and viral diseases, and contributes to environmental, social, and economic sustainability in global aquaculture. Since the first reports in the 1940s of fish vaccination for disease prevention [2], there have been many vaccines developed that significantly reduced the impact of bacterial and some viral diseases in fish [3]. Millions of fish are vaccinated annually, and in some areas of the world there has been a transition away from antibiotics and toward vaccination. For example, there has been a dramatic reduction in the use of antibiotics in Norwegian salmon farming since the introduction of vaccines [4], and vaccination has become the most cost-effective and sustainable method of controlling infectious fish diseases [5].
A typical fish vaccine either contains or produces a substance that serves as an antigen. This component then stimulates an innate and/or adaptive immune response within the fish against a particular pathogen. Research on fish vaccines and fish immunology has increased throughout the 20th century, and there have been over 10,000 scholarly publications on fish vaccines in just the past 20 years. Several review articles described the history, advancements, types, and administration routes of fish vaccines, as well as the prospects and challenges of developing vaccines in aquaculture [6,7]. A historical review on fish vaccine research and the early pioneers in this field was published by Gudding and his colleagues [8]. The use of adjuvants and immunostimulants in fish vaccines, along with delivery methods, has been summarized by many researchers. Such work has focused on alternative methods (other than injection) for vaccine delivery, and the protective efficacies of traditional and promising new generation adjuvants [9,10,11]. Sommerset et al. described commercially available fish vaccines and how they perceived that the field would evolve over time [12]. Additional reviews have focused on current vaccine applications for large-scale fish farming operations, and future trends for inactivated, live-attenuated, and DNA vaccines [13]. Given the development of new technology and a lack of research reviews on advancements in fish vaccine technologies, there is a need for a comprehensive overview of where the field is currently. Up to now, over 26 licensed fish vaccines are commercially available worldwide for use in a variety of fish species (Table 1). Most of the vaccines have been approved for use by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for a variety of aquaculture species, and the majority of these vaccines utilize conventional production methods that start by culturing target pathogens [14,15]. This array of vaccines has successfully protected fish against a variety of serious fish diseases.
A strong understanding in fish vaccinology is generally based on two sciences: microbiology and immunology. With the advancement of molecular biology and the improved knowledge of protective antigens, there are rapid developments for new generations of vaccines for use in animals and humans [16,17,18,19]. Modern vaccine technology has targeted specific pathogen components, and vaccines developed using such approaches may include subunit or recombinant DNA vaccines that contain novel antigens produced using various expression systems [19,20]. Other technologies, such as RNA particle vaccines, have been developed globally and appear to induce greater levels of immunity than traditional vaccine technology [18]. Overall, such advances are promising; however, actual implementation had been somewhat limited for aquaculture due in part to the challenges of the aqueous environment and practical application of mass vaccination due to the nature of commercial fish farming [21]. In this review, we describe the use of conventional aquaculture vaccines and provide an overview of molecular approaches to vaccine development that are the most promising for new vaccines for use in aquaculture.

2. Conventional Fish Vaccines

Conventional fish vaccines have primarily consisted of inactivated whole organisms, but some live attenuated or subunit protein vaccines (formulated with adjuvants) have been commercialized [26]. The majority of licensed vaccines presently used in aquaculture are produced using conventional methods and principles similar to those initially developed by Jenner and Pasteur centuries ago [27]. Early fish vaccines consisted of formalin-killed bacteria, with or without adjuvant [10,11]. These were delivered through immersion or injection routes and in turn induced some level of humoral immunity (Figure 1). In the 1990s, some modified live vaccines were developed and commercialized for use in aquaculture [28]. These vaccines have been successful and their implementation has resulted in increased production for commercial aquaculture along with reduced use of chemical therapeutics and feed delivered antibiotics [3,8].

2.1. Inactivated/Killed Vaccine

Inactivated or killed vaccines are typically created from a virulent disease-causing microbe, and through some process it loses its ability to infect or replicate in or outside of a host. These changes can be induced through physical, chemical, or radiation processes without compromising the antigenicity of the microbial agent [29]. In contrast to live vaccines (discussed below) inactivated vaccines are more stable under field conditions and may be less expensive to produce [30]. Inactivated vaccines do not persist within the environment or in the vaccinated fish, so they are usually found to be safe, but may induce weaker or shorter-lived immunity when compared other vaccine types [31]. Weak immunogenicity of inactivated vaccines may be attributed to a poor activation of cellular immunity within the fish species and, therefore, can necessitate the use of adjuvants or multiple booster immunizations to induce protective immunity. Once administered, phagocytic antigen presenting cells (APCs) begin the process of removing activated immune cells and eliciting a humoral immune response with memory. Disadvantages for inactivated vaccines include the potential for immunosuppressive passenger antigens, toxic reactions caused by immune-enhancing adjuvants, reduced immunogenicity due to denaturation of proteins, and systemic reactions to certain adjuvants [32].
In aquaculture, most early vaccine trials focused on killed vaccines. The first reported use of a fish vaccine was a killed Aeromonas salmonicida vaccine by Duff, who investigated oral vaccination of cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii. The first commercially licensed vaccine for fish was a killed Yersinia ruckeri vaccine delivered by immersion against enteric redmouth disease [3]. Following the success of this bacterin, formalin-killed immersion vaccines for vibriosis (caused by Vibrio spp.) of trout and salmon were developed. The same principle for the inactivation of bacterial pathogens of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) was used to develop the early salmonid vaccines that were delivered by immersion [28]. These early immersion vaccines against A. salmonicida were not effective, as Bricknell et al. reported on the first injection-based bacterial vaccine in Atlantic salmon [33]. Currently, large-scale commercial aquaculture operations, especially those focused on high-value species such as Atlantic salmon, primarily utilize killed polyvalent injectable vaccines that contain adjuvant and multiple antigens to protect against different diseases [12,34]. Four of the eight licensed vaccines for fish in the US are killed vaccines (Table 1). These include: an A. salmonicida bacterin for use in salmonids and Koi carp (Cyprinus carpio), an A. salmonicida-Vibro anguillarum-Vibrio ordalii-Vibrio salmonicida bacterin for use in salmonids, an infectious salmon anemia (ISA) virus vaccine, and a Y. ruckeri bacterin for use in salmonids. Killed vaccines against Streptococcus spp. or/and Lactococcus spp. infections in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) or amberjack (Seriola dumerili) and yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata) in Japan and Europe also exist [12]. There is also a killed vibriosis vaccine, combined with Photobacterium damselae (subsp. piscicida), available and used in European sea bass and sea bream culture (Table 1). So far, there is only one bacterin (ERM vaccine) commercially available as an oral vaccine. Autogenous vaccines are created from site-specific, isolated pathogens of interest and provide more flexibility in production regulation, and are implemented within a collaborative veterinary-client-patient-relationship [35]. Inactivated autogenous homologous vaccines, which are often killed bacterial strains, may provide producers with a cost-effective alternative to commercial vaccines, and these vaccines can be catered to specific pathogens that are problematic to a particular operation [6,14]. These vaccines may offer a responsive solution to emerging pathogens of interest, where commercial vaccines may not be applicable [35].
Inactivated vaccines are often less efficient against viral infections and diseases caused by intracellular bacteria [36]. A formalin-inactivated Edwardsiella ictaluri vaccine previously used in aquaculture was shown to have a limited ability to enter the fish [37]. Some studies have shown that inactivated vaccines do not generate sufficient immunity for salmon pancreas disease virus (SPDV) or red sea bream iridovirus disease [38]. Additionally, it is difficult to obtain long-lasting immunity against salmon rickettsial syndrome (Piscirickettsia salmonis infection). Booster immunizations can enhance immunity and even oral boosters have been shown to strengthen the immune response to a specific pathogen; for example, this was demonstrated for Francisellosis (Franscisella spp), which is caused by infection with F. noatunensis [39].

2.2. Live Vaccines

Modified live vaccines are prepared from one or more viruses or bacteria displaying attenuated virulence or natural low virulence toward the target fish species. Pathogens can be attenuated using physical or chemical processes, serial passage in cell culture, culture under abnormal conditions, or genetic manipulation [40]. Live vaccines tend to be more immunogenic than killed preparations due to their ability to proliferate or enter the host and stimulate greater cellular responses linked to both innate and adaptive immunity [41]. Such cell-mediated immune responses are considered to mimic a natural pathogen infection almost identically and, in turn, generate a strong antibody response. Since the pathogen enters and often replicates within the host, the animal can develop adequate cellular memory resulting in long-lasting immunity, which is clearly a major benefit in agricultural and aquaculture species [28]. Since live vaccines are usually quite effective and retain attributes of natural infection, the use of an accompanying adjuvant is not typically required to enhance efficacy. In terms of commercial applications for aquaculture, live vaccines have a greater potential to be administered via oral or immersion routes (Figure 1). Thus, the mode of administration is more dynamic than for inactivated vaccines that must utilize adjuvants [29].
Attenuated live vaccines have been proven safe under most circumstances; however, there are potential risks that must be addressed to ensure such products do not revert to virulence, display residual virulence, or are virulent in immunocompromised vaccinates. This, or the potential of contamination with unwanted organisms, could affect the efficacy and the licensing process for live vaccines. Presently, three modified live aquaculture vaccines are licensed in the USA. These include an Arthrobacter vaccine against bacterial kidney disease (BKD) for use in salmonids, an E. ictalurii vaccine against enteric septicemia of catfish (ESC), and a Flavobacterium columnare vaccine against columnaris in catfish [42]. The live Arthrobacter vaccine, named Renogen against BKD, has been licensed in Canada and Chile [28] and consists of non-pathogenic soil bacteria that provide cross-protection to the virulent Renibacterium salmoninarum. A live viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) vaccine is available in Germany [43], and a live viral vaccine against Koi herpesvirus (KHV) for carp is available for use in Israel [44].
The two licensed live bacterial vaccines in the US were developed by a serial passage procedure in the presence of increasing concentrations of the antibiotic rifampicin [25,45,46,47]. This strategy is one of the most successful chemical mutagenesis strategies for Gram-negative bacteria. Norqvist et al. utilized this approach for attenuation of V. anguillarum for use with rainbow trout [48]. This approach has also been used to attenuate Flavobacterium psychrophilum, and has demonstrated both safety and efficacy in salmonids [49]. Over the past decade, this F. psychrophilum vaccine has been further investigated and enhanced following production under iron limited conditions (designated B.17:ILM), has been optimized under a range of conditions, and has been shown to provide robust cross-protection against a wide variety of global F. psychrophilum strains [49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. This antibiotic mutagenesis approach was also implemented for other fish pathogens that include A. hydrophila [56] and Flavobacterium spp. [57,58,59] in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) or carp species [60], E. tarda in channel catfish and Japanese flounder [61,62], and V. anguillarum in Japanese flounder [63]. Other chemical agents, like acriflavine dye and novobiocin, were used to attenuate Streptococcus agalactiae, S. iniae, E. ictaluri, and A. hydrophila [64,65], but, to date, these vaccines have not been commercialized.
The Arthrobacter vaccine against BKD is unique in that it does not consist of a live Gram-positive R. salmoninarum strain, but instead utilizes a live A. davidanieli bacterium that elicits cross-protective immunity to R. salmoninarum [24,66]. This use of this antigenic cross-reactivity microbe as an antigen can be effective, and other strategies to attenuate fish pathogens have been explored. These include serial passages [67] and the use of phylogenetic relatedness and antigenic cross-reactivity microbes as an antigen [24,66,68]. Physical processes were also used to induce mutations. For example, Perelberg et al. mutated an attenuated KHV by ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, which likely modified several additional viral genes, in an attempt to enhance attenuation and reduce the possibility of reversion back to a pathogenic phenotype [69].
Beyond physical and chemical induction of attenuation, molecular manipulation of pathogens has been implemented to produce genetically modified mutants as vaccine candidates. In most cases, the goal is to delete virulence genes or regulatory genes linked to virulence. This has been used for large DNA viruses, such as herpesviruses like KHV [70]. By selecting KHV mutants or KHV recombinants that targeted viral ribonucleotide reductase, thymidine kinase (TK), or dUTPase genes, it was found that similar levels of specific serum antibodies to the parental wild-type virus were induced, and it was suggested that these may serve as suitable live vaccines [44,71].
For bacterial strains, this technology has been successful in generating live vaccines against specific fish diseases. Some studies using genetic recombination that affected external polysaccharides of Edwardsiella spp. have been promising. By targeting the O-polysaccharides gene (OPS), polysaccharide biosynthesis was completely disrupted resulting in marked attenuation and high immune protection for catfish following challenge with the virulent wild-type bacterium [72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. Other studies have created attenuated Streptococcus spp., where virulence factor production, such as polysaccharides, M-like proteins, and phosphoglucomutase, was eliminated [79,80]. Other examples where genetic manipulation has resulted in attenuation include mutant Francisella asiatica [81], Vibrio mimicus [82], and V. alginolyticus strains [83]. These have provided protection in fish and suggested further development for live vaccine technologies for aquaculture.

3. Alternative Vaccine Technology

3.1. Subunit Vaccines

Subunit vaccines take advantage of using only antigenic components for vaccination and since subunit vaccines cannot replicate in the host, there is no risk of pathogenicity to the host or non-target species [84]. Subunit vaccines can be produced in a highly characterized state, and they target immune responses toward specific microbial determinants, enable the incorporation of unnatural components, and can be freeze-dried, allowing for non-refrigerated transport and storage [84,85]. Subunit vaccines have many desirable qualities, but in many cases, their ability to stimulate a potent immune response can be weaker than killed or live whole cell preparations. This is due to the limited number of components that are represented and capable of stimulating an immune system and the lack of replication or exposure to multiple antigens representing a whole cell vaccine. Some subunit vaccines rely on effective adjuvants to elicit the appropriate immunity, since the simplified (synthetic, recombinant, and/or highly purified) antigenic components of the vaccine mostly lack immunogenicity by themselves, and may require multiple booster immunizations to ensure long- term protective immunity [85].
There are multiple ways to produce a subunit vaccine. Immunogenic components can be isolated and purified directly from the target pathogen, or specific immunogenic proteins can be produced using various recombinant expression vectors. Different prokaryotic and eukaryotic cellular systems have been used for the production of immunogenic proteins for viral and bacterial fish vaccines. An Escherichia coli expression system has commonly been used for the propagation of plasmids carrying genes that encode a specific protective antigen, which can be harvested at the end of the fermentation cycle. Reverse vaccinology was adopted to design a unique multi-epitope subunit vaccine against pathogens. Based on this strategy, a four component, protein-based subunit vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B vaccine was licensed for use by the European Medical Agency and other authorities [19,86].
Successful subunit vaccines for aquaculture that utilize E. coli-based expression include infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) in Norway (IPNV peptide, VP2; Produced by Merck Animal Health, Kenilworth, NJ, USA). A yeast-based subunit vaccine against the ISA virus (HE and F proteins; Manufactured by Centrovet) has also been produced and is available in Chile. Other expression systems used to produce the fish subunit vaccine experimentally include baculovirus and yeast for VHSV or infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) proteins [30,87,88,89,90,91], IPN proteins manufactured via cabbage worms (Trichoplusia ni) [92], and salmonid alphavirus 3 recombinant proteins produced in a fish cell line [93]. Although substantial research has been conducted on subunit vaccines, they have not been widely developed or commercialized for use in aquaculture. This is likely due to the need for adjuvants to stimulate adequate protection against some pathogens of concern [9,85,94,95,96]. Further, with respect to production costs, recombinant vaccines may often be expensive to produce for fish species, animals that may be considered low-value in comparison to other agricultural production species [97]. This is due to additional protein processing methods that are required to ensure vaccine efficacy [97]. Despite these limitations, this strategy may still be important and has the potential to succeed for pathogens that are difficult to cultivate, such as the piscine myocarditis virus (causing cardiomyopathy syndrome in Atlantic salmon).
Virus-like particles (VLPs) are components of an advanced subunit vaccine (Figure 1), which are formed from the self-assembly of viral capsid proteins into particles that mimic the natural structure of the virus [98]. However, unlike the actual viral particles, VLPs lack genomic material, precluding any possibility of reversion mutations or pathogenic infection [99]. VLPs are unable to replicate in the recipient, but can potentiate both innate and adaptive immune responses through the recognition of repetitive subunits and by producing high cellular and humoral responses [100]. VLPs, both non-enveloped and enveloped, have been produced in bacteria, yeast, transgenic plants, insect, mammalian, and cell-free platforms. Additionally, vaccine antigens can be produced as genetic fusions or chemical conjugates to viral structural proteins, resulting in chimeric VLPs [101].
Due to the advantages compared to other vaccine types, the interest in VLP technology has increased in recent years. Some highly purified VLP vaccines have been licensed and commercialized in humans, such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s Engerix (hepatitis B virus (HBV)), Cervarix (human papillomavirus (HPV)), and Merck’s Recombivax HB (HBV) and Gardasil (HPV) [102]. Recently, various VLP vaccine candidates for fish diseases have been developed. For example, nervous necrosis virus (NNV) VLP vaccines that utilized E. coli, yeast, baculovirus, and plant or cell-free self-assembled expression were produced. Those studies showed that VLPs with similar size and geometry to the native virus could elicit an antibody response in fish by injection [103,104,105,106,107,108]. Chien et al. and Cho et al. developed oral VLP vaccines against grouper NNV [109,110]. Dhar et al. demonstrated that the IPNV capsid protein VP2, expressed in yeast, self-assembles into subviral particles (SVPs) and the injection of the SVPs into rainbow trout elicits an immune response [111]. Guo et al. reported that two IHNV recombinant viruses displaying IPNV VP2 protein were generated using the RNA polymerase system against both IHNV and IPNV infection [112]. Based on these and other studies, VLPs have been shown to elicit strong immunogenicity and constitute a safe alternative to inactivated or attenuated vaccines.

3.2. Nucleic Acid Vaccines

Several nucleic acid vaccines have been developed for use in aquaculture over the past 20 years [113]. It has been suggested that these vaccines have the combined positive attributes of both live attenuated and subunit vaccines [113,114]. Nucleic acid vaccines consist of DNA or RNA encoding the antigen(s) of interest and are considered relatively simple to generate and safe to administer since they cannot revert to a pathogenic state [26]. Nucleotide-based vaccines have advantages over other vaccines that include production flexibility that is scalable and cost competitive, and the need for cold storage is eliminated. Newer RNA-based vaccines offer all the advantages of nucleotide-based approaches, including enhanced immunogenicity, and it has been suggested that this advanced technology may start a revolution in medicine.

3.2.1. DNA Vaccines

DNA vaccines consist of an expression plasmid that carries a specific gene that codes for a selected antigenic protein, which when expressed in the host is expected to elicit a strong immune response. Plasmid production is scaled-up within bacterial cells, and the gene of interest is flanked by promoter and termination elements that facilitate expression within eukaryotic cells [114]. DNA vaccines are able to strongly activate cellular and humoral immunity. The development of DNA vaccines can be rapid and relatively straightforward if a protective antigen is known. DNA vaccines are often more effective in protecting against viral infections, and have been especially efficient against fish rhabdoviruses, as they usually utilize the same cellular mechanics that a virus utilizes once they enter a host cell [115]. DNA vaccines also have been efficacious in the prevention of fish exposure to intracellular bacteria, like Mycobacterium marinum [116,117].
The first reported DNA vaccine for use in aquaculture was against IHN and it was tested in rainbow trout [114]. In the past decade, other experimental DNA vaccines have been developed against a variety of aquatic pathogens and for a wide array of fish species [118]. However, only a limited number of these have been commercialized and made available for the market. One is a DNA vaccine against IHNV, which was licensed and commercialized in Canada (Apex-IHN), and another is against pancreas disease virus in the European Union (salmonid alphavirus subtype 3 DNA vaccine) and is marketed as Clynav (Table 1).
Several DNA vaccine reviews were published that report on their effects and application [114,115,119]. The route of administration for these vaccines is intramuscular (IM) injection in most fish species, as the genetic material must be relatively protected in order to gain entry into host cells [120]. After being injected with a DNA vaccine, fish demonstrate enhanced innate and adaptive immunity similar to mammalian species [115]. Additionally, DNA vaccines can usually be constructed to be multivalent, and provide protection or cross-protection by using gene coding for multiple antigens in the plasmid design [121]. DNA vaccines are considered safer than attenuated live vaccines as they only express the antigenic protein segments and not the entire organism, although the antigen interactions within the host are not well understood. As the antigen is produced inside of the organism via genetic expression from host cells, the duration of the immune response is in most cases long-lasting [122].

3.2.2. RNA-Based Vaccines

At present, there are two major RNA-based vaccines, which are distinguished by the translational capacity of the RNA: conventional, non-amplifying mRNA and self-amplifying mRNA (i.e., replicons) [110]. The RNA-based vaccines are developing rapidly and several have demonstrated encouraging results in both human and animals [123]. Using RNA in a vaccine has a number of advantages: it is safe because RNA is non-infectious and degraded by normal cellular processes, and there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis. Furthermore, RNA is a potent stimulator of immunity [123]. Recent advances in RNA vaccine technology have been extensively reviewed in several publications [26,123,124,125,126], and thus, the successes and impact are briefly summarized in the context of their future promise for application in aquaculture.
The most currently used self-replicating RNA vaccines are based on an alphavirus genome [127]. Alphaviruses belong to the family Togaviridae, which includes the Sindbis virus, Semliki Forest virus, and equine encephalitis viruses [128,129]. The alphavirus vector vaccine has a single RNA gene encoding RNA replication machinery, which is left intact, but the genes encoding the structural proteins are replaced with the antigen of interest. This antigen-encoding RNA replicon platform enables a large number of antigens from an extremely small dose of vaccine to be produced in vitro transcribed (IVT) from a DNA template [123]. The viral replication takes place in the cytoplasm of the host cell and, therefore, is independent of the host replication system, making replicase-based nucleic acid vaccines a very efficient and attractive delivery vehicle [124]. Previous research has demonstrated that alphaviral RNA vaccines are more efficient at stimulating antigen specific immune responses, particularly cellular responses, as compared with conventional plasmid DNA vaccines [130].
Alphavirus replicon particles (RPs) are single-cycle, propagation-defective particles that are not able to spread beyond the initial infected cells. RP vaccines have been evaluated in many different species of animals as well as humans with a proven record of safety and efficacy [131]. The RPs RNA vaccine that was approved by the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) against influenza A virus in swine was produced using a unique SirraVaxSM RNA particle technology platform (Harris Vaccine Inc., now Merck Animal Health) [131,132]. In 2014, just four months after the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) broke out in the United States and affected about 50% of the swine population, Harris vaccines commercialized an RP vaccine that prevented this disease [133] The alphavirus RPs RNA vaccine has been developed and has been shown to provide protection against many pathogens in many different species [131,134,135,136]. These vaccines can induce robust and balanced immune responses and offer many other advantages associated with ideal vaccines. The alphavirus replicase functions in a broad range of host cells, like mammalian, avian, reptilian, amphibian, insect, and fish. Therefore, by replacing the genes for the structural proteins of the virus with a fish pathogen antigen of interest, the self-amplifying RNA vaccine could potentially protect against a number of important fish diseases. SPDV, a known salmonid alphavirus (SAV), was assigned to the family Togaviridae, genus Alphavirus, and resembles the genome of mammalian alphaviruses. Kalsen et al. described the characterization of untranslated regions of the salmonid alphavirus 3 (SAV3) genome and constructed an SAV3 based replicon [137]. This replicon vaccine provides high protection against ISA by IM injection without adjuvant, but intraperitoneal (IP) administration of the same replicon vaccine did not induce protection [138,139]. Hence, the SAV-based replicon represents a vaccine candidate for aquaculture.

4. Conclusion

An ideal fish vaccine is one that is safe for the animal and environment, economical for large-scale production, easy to administer, capable of inducing strong immunity throughout periods of greatest susceptibility, and demonstrates minimal side effects. New and alternative fish vaccines are adapting advanced technologies often developed based on needs in animal or human medicine, but have shown great promise for aquaculture. Those that meet the criteria for an effective aquaculture vaccine will provide the most benefit and have the greatest potential for commercialization. New fish vaccines using alternative technologies (beyond just killed cellular preparations) can be expensive to develop, but given the limited success of traditional approaches for new diseases problems, it is essential to further explore such approaches. As aquaculture continues to grow globally, there will be a need for new vaccines long into the future, and the application of all available biotechnology towards solving emerging disease issues will be critical.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.M., T.J.B. and E.M.J.; Writing—Review & Editing, J.M., T.J.B., E.M.J. and K.D.C.; Supervision, K.D.C.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sneeringer, S.; Bowman, M.; Clancy, M. The US and EU Animal Pharmaceutical Industries in the Age of Antibiotic Resistance; USDA Economic Research Service Report Number 264; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Snieszko, S.F.; Friddle, S.B. Prophylaxis of furunculosis in brook trout (Salvelinus Fontinalis) by oral immunization and sulfamerazine. Prog. Fish-Cult. 1949, 11, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gudding, R.; Goodrich, T. The History of fish vaccination. In Fish Vaccination, 1st ed.; Gudding, R., Lillehaug, A., Evensen, Ø., Eds.; John. Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New. York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rodger, H.D. Fish disease causing economic impact in global aquaculture. In Fish Vaccines, 1st ed.; Adams, A., Ed.; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  5. Horzinek, M.C.; Schijns, V.E.C.J.; Denis, M.; Desmettre, P.; Babiuk, L.A. General description of vaccines. In Veterinary Vaccinology; Pastoret, P.P., Blancou, J., Vannier, P., Verschueren, C., Eds.; Elsevier Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 132–152. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sudheesh, P.S.; Cain, K.D. Prospects and challenges of developing and commercializing immersion vaccines for aquaculture. Int. Biol. Rev. 2017, 1, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  7. Thompson, K.D.; Roberts, R.J. Fish Vaccines, 1st ed.; Adams, A., Ed.; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gudding, R.; Van Muiswinkel, W.B. A history of fish vaccination: Science-based disease prevention in aquaculture. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1683–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Plant, K.P.; LaPatra, S.E. Advances in fish vaccine delivery. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2011, 35, 1256–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tafalla, C.; Bøgwald, J.; Dalmo, R.A. Adjuvants and immunostimulants in fish vaccines: Current knowledge and future perspectives. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1740–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tafalla, C.; Bøgwald, J.; Dalmo, R.A.; Munang′andu, H.M.; Evensen, Ø. Adjuvants in fish vaccines. In Fish Vaccination, 1st ed.; Gudding, R., Lillehaug, A., Evensen, Ø., Eds.; John. Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New. York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 68–84. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sommerset, I.; Krossøy, B.; Biering, E.; Frost, P. Vaccines for fish in aquaculture. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2005, 4, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brudeseth, B.E.; Wiulsrød, R.; Fredriksen, B.N.; Lindmo, K.; Løkling, K.E.; Bordevik, M.; Steine, N.; Klevan, A.; Gravningen, K. Status and future perspectives of vaccines for industrialised fin-fish farming. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1759–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Adams, A. Progress, challenges and opportunities in fish vaccine development. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 90, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Van Oirschot, J.T. Classical attenuated vaccines. In Veterinary Vaccinology; Pastoret, P.P., Blancou, J., Vannier, P., Verschueren, C., Eds.; Elsevier Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 258–260. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brun, A.; Bárcena, J.; Blanco, E.; Borrego, B.; Dory, D.; Escribano, J.M.; Le Gall-Reculé, G.; Ortego, J.; Dixon, L.K. Current strategies for subunit and genetic viral veterinary vaccine development. Virus Res. 2011, 157, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kim, H.; Lee, Y.K.; Kang, S.C.; Han, B.K.; Choi, K.M. Recent vaccine technology in industrial animals. Clin. Exp. Vaccine Res. 2016, 5, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Frietze, K.M.; Peabody, D.S.; Chackerian, B. Engineering virus-like particles as vaccine platforms. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2016, 18, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kelly, D.F.; Rappuoli, R. Reverse vaccinology and vaccines for serogroup B Neisseria meningitidis. In Hot Topics in Infection and Immunity in Children, 2nd ed.; Pollard, A.J., Finn, A., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 217–223. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cimica, V.; Galarza, J.M. Adjuvant formulations for virus-like particle (VLP) based vaccines. J. Clin. Immunol. 2017, 183, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Dhar, A.; Allnutt, F. Challenges and opportunities in developing oral vaccines against viral diseases of fish. J. Mar. Sci. Res. Dev. 2011, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dhar, A.K.; Manna, S.K.; Allnutt, F.T. Viral vaccines for farmed finfish. Virus Dis. 2014, 25, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Dixon, P.; Stone, D.A. Spring viraemia of carp Fish Viruses Bact. Pathobiol. Prot. 2017, 26, 79–90. [Google Scholar]
  24. Salonius, K.; Siderakis, C.; MacKinnon, A.M.; Griffiths, S.G. Use of Arthrobacter davidanieli as a live vaccine against Renibacterium salmoninarum and Piscirickettsia salmonis in salmonids. Dev. Biol. 2005, 121, 189–197. [Google Scholar]
  25. Shoemaker, C.A.; Klesius, P.H.; Drennan, J.D.; Evans, J.J. Efficacy of a modified live Flavobacterium columnare vaccine in fish. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2011, 30, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ulmer, J.B.; Mason, P.W.; Geall, A.; Mandl, C.W. RNA-based vaccines. Vaccine 2012, 30, 4414–4418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tizard, I. Grease, anthraxgate, and kennel cough: A revisionist history of early veterinary vaccines. In Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics; Schulz, R.D., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1998; Volume 41, pp. 7–24. [Google Scholar]
  28. Shoemaker, C.A.; Klesius, P.H.; Evans, J.J.; Arias, C.R. Use of modified live vaccines in aquaculture. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 2009, 40, 573–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tlaxca, J.L.; Ellis, S.; Remmele, R.L., Jr. Live attenuated and inactivated viral vaccine formulation and nasal delivery: Potential and challenges. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2015, 93, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Biering, E.; Villoing, S.; Sommerset, I.; Christie, K.E. Update on viral vaccines for fish. Dev. Biol. 2005, 121, 97–113. [Google Scholar]
  31. Baxter, D. Active and passive immunity, vaccine types, excipients and licensing. Occup. Med. 2007, 57, 552–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Pasquale, A.D.; Preiss, S.; Silva, F.T.; Garcon, N. Vaccine adjuvants: From 1920 to 2015 and beyond. Vaccines 2015, 3, 320–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bricknell, I.R.; Bowden, T.J.; Lomax, J.; Ellis, A.E. Antibody response and protection of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) immunised with an extracellular polysaccharide of Aeromonas salmonicida. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 1997, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Evensen, Ø. Development of fish vaccines: Focusing on methods. In Fish Vaccines; Adams, A., Ed.; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 53–74. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yanong, R.P. Use of Vaccines in Finfish Aquaculture; Report FA156; US Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service: Washington, DC, USA; University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioner: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Seder, R.A.; Hill, A.V. Vaccines against intracellular infections requiring cellular immunity. Nature 2000, 406, 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Nusbaum, K.E.; Morrison, E.E. Entry of 35 S-labeled Edwardsiella ictaluri into channel catfsh (Ictalutus punctatus). J. Aquat. Anim. Health 1996, 8, 146–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Evensen, Ø.; Leong, J.A.C. DNA vaccines against viral diseases of farmed fish. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1751–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tobar., I.; Arancibia., S.; Torres., C.; Vera., V.; Soto., P.; Carrasco., C.; Alvarado, M.; Neira, E.; Arcos, S.; Tobar, J.A. Successive oral immunizations against Piscirickettsia salmonis and infectious salmon anemia virus are required to maintain a long-term protection in farmed salmonids. Front. Immunol. 2015, 6, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Desmettre, P.; Martinod, S. Research and development. In Veterinary Vaccinology; Pastoret, P.P., Blancou, J., Vannier, P., Verschueren, C., Eds.; Elsevier Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 175–194. [Google Scholar]
  41. Levine, M.M.; Sztein, M.B. Vaccine development strategies for improving immunization: The role of modern immunology. Nat. Immunol. 2004, 5, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Klesius, P.H.; Pridgeon, J.W. Vaccination against enteric septicemia of catfish. In Fish Vaccination; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2014; pp. 211–225. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gomez-Casado, E.; Estepa, A.; Coll, J.M. A comparative review on European-farmed finfish RNA viruses and their vaccines. Vaccine 2011, 29, 2657–2671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fuchs, W.; Fichtner, D.; Bergmann, S.M.; Mettenleiter, T.C. Generation and characterization of koi herpesvirus recombinants lacking viral enzymes of nucleotide metabolism. Arch. Virol. 2011, 156, 1059–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Shoemaker, C.A.; Klesius, P.H. Protective immunity against enteric septicemia in channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque), following controlled exposure to Edwardsiella ictaluri. J. Fish Dis. 1997, 20, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shoemaker, C.A.; Klesius, P.H.; Bricker, J.M. Efficacy of a modified live Edwardsiella ictaluri vaccine in channel catfish as young as seven days post hatch. Aquacult 1999, 176, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shoemaker, C.A.; Klesius, P.H.; Evans, J.J. Immunization of eyed channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, eggs with monovalent Flavobacterium columnare vaccine and bivalent F. columnare and Edwardsiella ictaluri vaccine. Vaccine 2007, 25, 1126–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Norqvist, A.; Hagstrom, A.; Wolf-Watz, H.A.N.S. Protection of rainbow trout against vibriosis and furunculosis by the use of attenuated strains of Vibrio anguillarum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989, 55, 1400–1405. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  49. LaFrentz, B.R.; LaPatra, S.E.; Call, D.R.; Cain, K.D. Isolation of rifampicin resistant Flavobacterium psychrophilum strains and their potential as a live attenuated vaccine candidates. Vaccine 2008, 26, 5582–5589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. LaFrentz, B.R.; LaPatra, S.E.; Call, D.R.; Wiens, F.D.; Cain, K.D. Proteomic analysis of Flavobacterium psychrophilum cultured in vivo and in iron-limited media. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2009, 87, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Long, A.; Fehringer, T.R.; Swain, M.A.; LaFrentz, B.R.; Call, D.R.; Cain, K.D. Enhanced efficacy of an attenuated Flavobacterium psychrophilum strain cultured under iron-limited conditions. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1477–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Makesh, M.; Sudheesh, P.S.; Cain, K.D. Systemic and mucosal immune response of rainbow trout to immunization with an attenuated Flavobacterium psychrophilum vaccine strain by different routes. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2015, 44, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sudheesh, P.S.; Zimmerman, J.K.; Cain, K.D. Dietary effects on immunity, stress, and efficacy of two live attenuated Flavobacterium psychrophilum vaccine formulations. Aquacult 2016, 454, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sudheesh, P.S.; LaFrentz, B.R.; Call, D.R.; Siems, W.F.; LaPatra, S.E.; Wiens, G.D.; Cain, K.D. Identification of potential vaccine target antigens by immunoproteomic analysis of a virulent and a non-virulent strain of the fish pathogen Flavobacterium Psychrophilum. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2007, 74, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Ma, J.; Bruce, T.J.; Sudheesh, P.S.; Knupp, C.; Loch, T.P.; Faisal, M.; Cain, K.D. Assessment of cross protection to heterologous strains of Flavobacterium psychrophilum following vaccination with a live-attenuated coldwater disease immersion vaccine. J. Fish Dis. 2019, 42, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Pridgeon, J.W.; Klesius, P.H. Development and efficacy of novobiocin and rifampicin-resistant Aeromonas hydrophila as novel vaccines in channel catfish and Nile tilapia. Vaccine 2011, 29, 7896–7904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mohammed, H.; Olivares-Fuster, O.; LaFrentz, S.; Arias, C.R. New attenuated vaccine against columnaris disease in fish: Choosing the right parental strain is critical for vaccine efficacy. Vaccine 2013, 31, 5276–5280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Olivares-Fuster, O.; Arias, C.R. Development and characterization of rifampicin-resistant mutants from high virulent strains of Flavobacterium columnare. J. Fish Dis. 2011, 34, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Li, N.; Lin, Q.; Fu, X.; Guo, H.; Liu, L.; Wu, S. Development and efficacy of a novel streptomycin-resistant Flavobacterium johnsoniae vaccine in grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). Aquaculture 2015, 448, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jiang, X.; Zhang, C.; Zhao, Y.; Kong, X.; Pei, C.; Li, L.; Nie, G.; Li, X. Immune effects of the vaccine of live attenuated Aeromonas hydrophila screened by rifampicin on common carp (Cyprinus carpio. L). Vaccine 2016, 34, 3087–3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Evans, J.J.; Klesius, P.H.; Shoemaker, C.A. Modified Live Edwardsiella Tarda Vaccine for Aquatic Animals. U.S. Patent No. 7,067,122, 27 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sun, Y.; Liu, C.S.; Sun, L. Isolation and analysis of the vaccine potential of an attenuated Edwardsiella tarda strain. Vaccine 2010, 28, 6344–6350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yu, L.P.; Hu, Y.H.; Sun, B.G.; Sun, L. C312M: An attenuated Vibrio anguillarum strain that induces immunoprotection as an oral and immersion vaccine. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2012, 102, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Laith, A.A.; Abdullah, M.A.; Nurhafizah, W.W.I.; Hussein, H.A.; Aya, J.; Effendy, A.W.M.; Najiah, M. Efficacy of live attenuated vaccine derived from the Streptococcus agalactiae on the immune responses of Oreochromis niloticus. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 90, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pridgeon, J.W.; Klesius, P.H. Major bacterial diseases in aquaculture and their vaccine development. In Animal Science Review; Hemming, D., Bodinham, M., Eds.; CABI: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 141–156. [Google Scholar]
  66. Griffiths, S.G.; Melville, K.J.; Salonius, K. Reduction of Renibacterium salmoninarum culture activity in. Atlantic salmon following vaccination with avirulent strains. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 1998, 8, 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Swain, P.; Behera, T.; Mohapatra, D.; Nanda, P.K.; Nayak, S.K.; Meher, P.K.; Das, B.K. Derivation of rough attenuated variants from smooth virulent Aeromonas hydrophila and their immunogenicity in fish. Vaccine 2010, 28, 4626–4631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Itano, T.; Kawakami, H.; Kono, T.; Sakai, M. Live vaccine trials against nocardiosis in yellowtail Seriola quinqueradiata. Aquaculture 2006, 261, 1175–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Perelberg, A.; Ronen, A.; Hutoran, M.; Smith, Y.; Kotler, M. Protection of cultured Cyprinus carpio against a lethal viral disease by an attenuated virus vaccine. Vaccine 2005, 23, 3396–3403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Zhang, H.G.; Hanson, L.A. Deletion of thymidine kinase gene attenuates channel catfish herpesvirus while maintaining infectivity. Virology 1995, 209, 658–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Schröder, L.; Klafack, S.; Bergmann, S.M.; Fichtner, D.; Jin, Y.; Lee, P.Y.; Höper, D.; Mettenleiter, T.C.; Fuchs, W. Generation of a potential koi herpesvirus live vaccine by simultaneous deletion of the viral thymidine kinase and dUTPase genes. J. Gen. Virol. 2018, 100, 642–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lawrence, M.L.; Banes, M.M.; Williams, M.L. Phenotype and virulence of a transposon-derived lipopolysaccharide O side-chain mutant strain of Edwarsiella ictaluri. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2001, 13, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lawrence, M.L.; Banes, M.M. Tissue persistence and vaccine efficacy of an O polysaccharide mutant strain of Edwardsiella ictaluri. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2005, 17, 228–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Abdelhamed, H.; Ibrahim, I.; Baumgartner, W.; Lawrence, M.L.; Karsi, A. The virulence and immune protection of Edwardsiella ictaluri HemR mutants in catfish. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018, 72, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Triet, T.H.; Tinh, B.T.; Hau, L.V.; Huong, T.V.; Binh, N.Q. Development and potential use of an Edwardsiella ictaluri wzz mutant as a live attenuated vaccine against enteric septicemia in Pangasius hypophthalmus (Tra catfish). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 87, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Igarashi, A.; Iida, T. A vaccination trial using live cells of Edwardsiella tarda in tilapia. Fish Pathol. 2002, 37, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Xiao, J.; Chen, T.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Q.; Wang, X.; Lv, Y.; Wu, H.; Zhang, Y. Search for live attenuated vaccine candidate against edwardsiellosis by mutating virulence-related genes of fish pathogen Edwardsiella tarda. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 53, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Ma, R.; Yang, G.; Xu, R.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Wang, Q. Pattern analysis of conditional essentiality (PACE)-based heuristic identification of an in vivo colonization determinant as a novel target for the construction of a live attenuated vaccine against Edwardsiella piscicida. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 90, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Buchanan, J.T.; Stannard, J.A.; Lauth, X.; Ostland, V.E.; Powell, H.C.; Westerman, M.E.; Nizet, V. Streptococcus iniae phosphoglucomutase is a virulence factor and a target for vaccine development. Infect. Immun. 2005, 73, 6935–6944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Locke, J.B.; Vicknair, M.R.; Ostland, V.E.; Nizet, V.; Buchanan, J.T. Evaluation of Streptococcus iniae killed bacterin and live attenuated vaccines in hybrid striped bass through injection and bath immersion. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2010, 89, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Soto, E.; Wiles, J.; Elzer, P.; Macaluso, K.; Hawke, J.P. Attenuated Francisella asiatica iglC mutant induces protective immunity to francisellosis in tilapia. Vaccine 2011, 29, 593–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yu, Z.; Wang, E.; Geng, Y.; Wang, K.; Chen, D.; Huang, X.; Ping, O.; Zhicai, Z.; Changliang, H.; Li, T.; et al. Multiples genome editing by natural transformation in Vibrio mimicus with potential application in attenuated vaccine development. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 92, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pang, H.; Qiu, M.; Zhao, J.; Hoare, R.; Monaghan, S.J.; Song, D.; Chang, Y.; Jian, J. Construction of a Vibrio alginolyticus hopPmaJ (hop) mutant and evaluation of its potential as a live attenuated vaccine in orange-spotted grouper (Epinephelus coioides). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018, 76, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Hansson, M.; Nygren, P.A.K.; Stahl, S. Design and production of recombinant subunit vaccines. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2000, 32, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Holten-Andersen., L.; Doherty, T.M.; Korsholm, K.S.; Andersen, P. Combination of the cationic surfactant dimethyl dioctadecyl ammonium bromide and synthetic mycobacterial cord factor as an efficient adjuvant for tuberculosis subunit vaccines. Infect. Immun. 2004, 72, 1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Rappuoli, R.; Pizza, M.; Masignani, V.; Vadivelu, K. Meningococcal. B vaccine (4CMenB): The journey from research to real world experience. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2018, 17, 1111–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Lorenzen, N.; Olesen, N.J. Multiplication of. VHS virus in insect cells. Vet. Res. 1995, 26, 428–432. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  88. Lecocq-Xhonneux, F.; Thiry, M.; Dheur, I.; Rossius, M.; Vanderheijden, N.; Martial, J.; De Kinkelin, P. A recombinant viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus glycoprotein expressed in insect cells induces protective immunity in rainbow trout. J. Gen. Virol. 1994, 75, 1579–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Cain, K.D.; Byrne, K.M.; Brassfield, A.L.; LaPatra, S.E.; Ristow, S.S. Temperature dependent characteristics of a recombinant infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus glycoprotein produced in insect cells. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 1999, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Crane, M.; Hyatt, A. Viruses of fish: an overview of significant pathogens. Viruses 2011, 3, 2025–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Estepa, A.; Thiry, M.; Coll, J.M. Recombinant protein fragments from haemorrhagic septicaemia rhabdovirus stimulate trout leukocyte anamnestic responses in vitro. J. Gen. Virol. 1994, 75, 1329–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Shivappa, R.N.; McAllister, P.E.; Edwards, G.H.; Santi, N. Using a baculovirus insect/larvae. Dev. Biol. 2005, 121, 165–174. [Google Scholar]
  93. Xu, C.; Mutoloki, S.; Evensen, Ø. Superior protection conferred by inactivated whole virus vaccine over subunit and. DNA vaccines against salmonid alphavirus infection in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Vaccine 2012, 30, 3918–3928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Rahman, M.H.; Ototake, M.; Iida, Y.; Yokomizo, Y.; Nakanishi, T. Efficacy of oil-adjuvanted vaccine for coldwater disease in ayu Plecoglossus altivelis. Fish Pathol. 2000, 35, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Högfors, E.; Pullinen, K.R.; Madetoja, J.; Wiklund, T. Immunization of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), with a low molecular mass fraction isolated from Flavobacterium psychrophilum. J. Fish Dis. 2008, 31, 899–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Leong, J.C.; Anderson, E.; Bootland, L.M.; Chiou, P.W.; Johnson, M.; Kim, C.; Mourich, D.; Trobridge, G. Fish vaccine antigens produced or delivered by recombinant DNA technologies. Dev. Biol. Stand. 1997, 90, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  97. Barnes, A. Prevention of disease by vaccination. In Aquaculture: Farming. Aquatic. Animals and Plants, 3rd ed.; Lucas, J.S., Southgate, P.C., Tucker, C.S., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 249–272. [Google Scholar]
  98. Rosenthal, J.A.; Chen, L.; Baker, J.L.; Putnam, D.; DeLisa, M.P. Pathogen-like particles: Biomimetic vaccine carriers engineered at the nanoscale. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2014, 28, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Noad, R.; Roy, P. Virus-like particles as immunogens. Trends Microbiol. 2003, 11, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Keller, S.A.; Bauer, M.; Manolova, V.; Muntwiler, S.; Saudan, P.; Bachmann, M.F. Cutting edge: Limited specialization of dendritic cell subsets for. MHC class. II-associated presentation of viral particles. J. Immunol. 2010, 184, 26–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Grgacic, E.V.; Anderson, D.A. Virus-like particles: Passport to immune recognition. Methods 2006, 40, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kushnir, N.; Streatfield, S.J.; Yusibov, V. Virus-like particles as a highly efficient vaccine platform: Diversity of targets and production systems and advances in clinical development. Vaccine 2012, 31, 58–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lin, C.S.; Lu, M.W.; Tang, L.; Liu, W.; Chao, C.B.; Lin, C.J.; Krishna, N.K.; Johnson, J.E.; Scneemann, A. Characterization of virus-like particles assembled in a recombinant baculovirus system expressing the capsid protein of a fish nodavirus. Virology 2001, 290, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Lin, C.F.; Jiang, H.K.; Chen, N.C.; Wang, T.Y.; Chen, T.Y. Novel subunit vaccine with linear array epitope protect giant grouper against nervous necrosis virus infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018, 74, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Liu, W.; Hsu, C.H.; Chang, C.Y.; Chen, H.H.; Lin, C.S. Immune response against grouper nervous necrosis virus by vaccination of virus-like particles. Vaccine 2006, 24, 6282–6287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lai, Y.X.; Jin, B.L.; Xua, Y.; Huanga, L.J.; Huanga, R.Q.; Zhang, Y.; Kwang, J.; He, J.G.; Xie, J.F. Immune responses of orange-spotted grouper, Epinephelus coioides, against virus-like particles of betanodavirus produced in Escherichia coli. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2014, 157, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Marsian, J.; Hurdiss, D.L.; Ranson, N.A.; Ritala, A.; Paley, R.; Cano, I.; Lomonossoff, G.P. Plant-made nervous necrosis virus-like particles protect fish against disease. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Luu, V.T.; Moon, H.Y.; Hwang, J.Y.; Kang, B.K.; Hyun, A.K. Development of recombinant Yarrowia lipolytica producing virus-like particles of a fish nervous necrosis virus. J. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Chien, M.H.; Wu, S.Y.; Lin, C.H. Oral immunization with cell-free self-assembly virus-like particles against orange-spotted grouper nervous necrosis virus in grouper larvae, Epinephelus coioides. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2018, 197, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Cho, S.Y.; Kim, H.J.; Lan, N.T.; Han, H.J.; Lee, D.C.; Hwang, J.Y.; Kwon, M.G.; Kang, B.K.; Han, S.Y.; Moon, H.; et al. Oral vaccination through voluntary consumption of the convict grouper Epinephelus septemfasciatus with yeast producing the capsid protein of red-spotted grouper nervous necrosis virus. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 204, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Dhar, A.K.; Bowers, R.M.; Rowe, C.G.; Allnutt, F.T. Expression of a foreign epitope on infectious pancreatic necrosis virus VP2 capsid protein subviral particle (SVP) and immunogenicity in rainbow trout. Antivir. Res. 2010, 85, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Guo, M.; Shi, W.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Li, D.; Ren, X.; Hua, X.; Tang, L.; Li, Y.; et al. Recombinant infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus expressing infectious pancreatic necrosis virus VP2 protein induces immunity against both pathogens. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018, 78, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ulmer, J.B.; Geall, A.J. Recent innovations in mRNA vaccines. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2016, 41, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Kurath, G. Biotechnology and DNA vaccines for aquatic animals. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Des. Epizoot. 2008, 27, 175–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hølvold, L.B.; Myhr, A.I.; Dalmo, R.A. Strategies and hurdles using DNA vaccines to fish. Vet. Res. 2014, 45, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Pasnik, D.J.; Smith, S.A. Immune and histopathologic responses of. DNA-vaccinated hybrid striped bass. Morone saxatilis× M. chrysops after acute. Mycobacterium marinum infection. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2006, 73, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Pasnik, D.J.; Smith, S.A. Immunogenic and protective effects of a DNA vaccine for Mycobacterium marinum in fish. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2005, 103, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Anderson, E.D.; Mourich, D.V.; Fahrenkrug, S.C.; LaPatra, S.; Shepherd, J.; Leong, J.A. Genetic immunization of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) against infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 1996, 5, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  119. Dalmo, R.A. DNA vaccines for fish: Review and perspectives on correlates of protection. J. Fish Dis. 2018, 41, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Heppell, J.; Lorenzen, N.; Armstron, N.K.; Wu, T.; Lorenzen, E.; Einer-Jensen, K.; Schorr, J.; Davis, H.L. Development of DNA vaccines for fish: Vector design, intramuscular injection and antigen expression using viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus genes as model. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 1998, 8, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Biering, E.; Salonius, K. DNA vaccines. In Fish Vaccination, 1st ed.; Gudding, R., Lillehaug, A., Evensen, Ø., Eds.; John. Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2014; pp. 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  122. Weiner, D.B. DNA vaccines: Crossing a line in the sand introduction to special issue. Vaccine 2008, 26, 5073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Pardi, N.; Hogan, M.J.; Porter, F.W.; Weissman, D. mRNA vaccines—A new era in vaccinology. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2018, 17, 261–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Restifo, N.P.; Ying, H.; Hwang, L.; Leitner, W.W. The promise of nucleic acid vaccines. Gene 2000, 7, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Geall, A.J.; Blagbrough, I.S. Rapid and sensitive ethidium bromide fluorescence quenching assay of polyamine conjugate-DNA interactions for the analysis of lipoplex formation in gene therapy. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2000, 22, 849–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Brito, L.A.; Kommareddy, S.; Maione, D.; Uematsu, Y.; Giovani, C.; Scorza, F.B.; Otten, G.R.; Yu, D.; Mandl, C.W.; Mason, P.W.; et al. Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines. In Advances in Genetics, 1st ed.; Friedmann, T., Dunlap, J.C., Goodwin, S.F., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2015; Volume 92, pp. 179–233. [Google Scholar]
  127. Perri, S.; Greer, C.E.; Thudium, K.; Doe, B.; Legg, H.; Liu, H.; Romero, R.E.; Tang, Z.; Bin, Q.; Dubensky, T.W.; et al. An alphavirus replicon particle chimera derived from Venezuelan equine encephalitis and sindbis viruses is a potent gene-based vaccine delivery vector. J. Virol. 2003, 77, 10394–10403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Polo, J.M.; Belli, B.A.; Driver, D.A.; Frolov, I.; Sherrill, S.; Hariharan, M.J.; Townsend, K.; Perri, S.; Mento, S.J.; Jolly, D.J.; et al. Stable alphavirus packaging cell lines for Sindbis virus-and. Semliki Forest virus-derived vectors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 4598–4603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Weaver, S.C.; Kang, W.; Shirako, Y.; Rumenapf, T.; Strauss, E.G.; Strauss, J.H. Recombinational history and molecular evolution of western equine encephalomyelitis complex alphaviruses. J. Virol. 1997, 71, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  130. Leitner, W.W.; Ying, H.; Restifo, N.P. DNA and. RNA-based vaccines: Principles, progress and prospects. Vaccine 1999, 18, 765–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Vander Veen, R.L.; Harris, D.H.; Kamrud, K.I. Alphavirus replicon vaccines. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2012, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Sandbulte, M.; Spickler, A.; Zaabel, P.; Roth, J. Optimal use of vaccines for control of influenza A virus in swine. Vaccines 2015, 3, 22–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Mogler, M.A.; Gander, J.; Harris, D.L.H. Development of an alphavirus RNA particle vaccine against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. In Proceedings of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians Annual Meeting, Perry, IA, USA, 1–4 March 2014. [Google Scholar]
  134. Lundstrom, K. Replicon RNA viral vectors as vaccines. Vaccines 2016, 4, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Murgia, M.V.; Mogler, M.; Certoma, A.; Green, D.; Monaghan, P.; Williams, D.T.; Rowland, R.R.; Gaudreault, N.N. Evaluation of an. African swine fever (ASF) vaccine strategy incorporating priming with an alphavirus-expressed antigen followed by boosting with attenuated ASF virus. Arch. Virol. 2019, 164, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Loy, J.D.; Gander, J.; Mogler, M.; Vander Veen, R.; Ridpath, J.; Harris, D.H.; Kamrud, K. Development and evaluation of a replicon particle vaccine expressing the E2 glycoprotein of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) in cattle. Virol. J. 2013, 10, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Karlsen, M.; Villoing, S.; Rimstad, E.; Nylund, A. Characterization of untranslated regions of the salmonid alphavirus 3 (SAV3) genome and construction of a SAV3 based replicon. Virol. J. 2009, 6, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Wolf, A.; Hodneland, K.; Frost, P.; Braaen, S.; Rimstad, E. A hemagglutinin-esterase-expressing salmonid alphavirus replicon protects Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) against infectious salmon anemia (ISA). Vaccine 2013, 31, 661–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Wolf, A.; Hodneland, K.; Frost, P.; Hoeijmakers, M.; Rimstad, E. Salmonid alphavirus-based replicon vaccine against infectious salmon anemia (ISA): Impact of immunization route and interactions of the replicon vector. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2014, 36, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 07 00569 g001 550
Figure 1. Various approaches for fish vaccine development. On the left side are preparatory components, followed by production means in the middle, and final administration routes to the right. Individual fish receiving an injection denote the injection vaccination, while fish consuming the feed pellets represent administration via oral uptake. The grouped fish within the tank represent immersion as a vaccination route.
Figure 1. Various approaches for fish vaccine development. On the left side are preparatory components, followed by production means in the middle, and final administration routes to the right. Individual fish receiving an injection denote the injection vaccination, while fish consuming the feed pellets represent administration via oral uptake. The grouped fish within the tank represent immersion as a vaccination route.
Microorganisms 07 00569 g001
Table
Table 1. Overview of licensed fish vaccines that have been used in global aquaculture.
Table 1. Overview of licensed fish vaccines that have been used in global aquaculture.
DiseasePathogenMajor Fish HostVaccine TypeAntigens/TargetsDelivery MethodsCountry/Region*Further Information
Viral Diseases
Infectious hematopoietic necrosisIHNV
Rhabdovirus		SalmonidsDNAG GlycoproteinIMCanadahttps://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/rp-pr/acrdp-pcrda/projects-projets/P-07-04-010-eng.html
Infectious pancreatic necrosisIPNV
Birnavirus		Salmonids, sea bass, sea bream, turbot, Pacific codInactivatedInactivated IPNVIPNorway, Chile, UKwww.pharmaq.no
SubunitVP2 and VP3 Capsid ProteinsOralCanada, USAwww.aquavac-vaccines.com
SubunitVP2 ProteinsIPCanada, Chile, Norwayhttp://www.msd-animal-health.no/
Infectious salmon anemiaISAV
Orthomyxovirus		Atlantic salmonInactivatedInactivated ISAVIPNorway, Chile, Ireland, Finland, Canadawww.pharmaq.no
Pancreatic disease virusSAV alphavirusesSalmonidsInactivatedInactivated SAVIPNorway, Chile, UKhttps://www.merck-animal-health.co
Spring viremia of carp virusSVCV
Rhabdovirus		CarpSubunitG GlycoproteinIPBelgium[22]
InactivatedInactivated SVCVIPCzech Republic[23]
Koi herpesvirus diseaseKHV HerpesvirusCarpAttenuatedAttenuated KHVIMM or IPIsrael[22]
Infectious spleen and kidney necrosisISKNV
Iridovirus		Asian seabass, grouper, Japanese yellowtailInactivatedInactivated ISKNVIPSingaporehttps://www.aquavac-vaccines.com/
Bacterial diseases
Enteric redmouth disease (ERM)Yersinia ruckeriSalmonidsInactivatedInactivated Y. ruckeriIMM or oralUSA, Canada, Europehttp://www.msd-animal-health.ie/products_ni_vet/aquavac-erm-oral/overview.aspx; https://www.msd-animal-health-hub.co.uk
VibriosisVibrio anguillarum;
Vibrio ordalii;
Vibrio salmonicida		Salmonids, ayu, grouper, sea bass, sea bream, yellowtail, cod, halibutInactivatedInactivated
Vibriosis spp.		IP or IMMUSA, Canada, Japan, Europe, Australiahttps://www.merck-animal-health.com/species/aquaculture/trout.aspx;
FurunculosisAeromonas salmonicida subsp. salmonicidaSalmonidsInactivatedInactivated
A. salmonicida spp.		IP or IMMUSA, Canada, Chile, Europe, Australiahttps://www.msd-animal-health-me.com/species/aqua.aspx
Bacterial kidney disease (BKD)Renibacterium salmoninarumSalmonidsAvirulent live cultureArthrobacter davidanieliIPCanada, Chile, USA[24]
Enteric septicemia of catfish (ESC)Edwarsiella ictaluriCatfishInactivatedInactivated E. ictaluriIPVietnamhttps://www.pharmaq.no/
Columnaris diseaseFlavobacterium columnarisAll freshwater finfish species, bream, bass, turbot, salmonAttenuatedAttenuated F. columnareIMMUSA[25]
PasteurellosisPasteurela piscicidaSea bass, sea bream, soleInactivatedInactivated P. pscicidaIMMUSA, Europe, Taiwan, JapanALPHA JECT 2000
LactococciosisLactococcus garviaeRainbow trout, amberjack, yellowtailInactivatedInactivated L. garviaeIPSpainhttps://www.hipra.com/
Streptococcus infectionsStreptococcus spp.Tilapia, yellow tail, rainbow trout, ayu, sea bass, sea breamInactivatedInactivated S. agalactiae (biotype 1)IPTaiwan Province of China, Japan, Brazil, Indonesiahttps://www.aquavac-vaccines.com/products/aquavac-strep-sa1/
Inactivated S. agalactiae (biotype 2)IP https://www.aquavac-vaccines.com/products/aquavac-strep-sa/
Inactivated S. iniaeIP or IMM https://www.aquavac-vaccines.com/products/aquavac-strep-si/
Salmonid rickettsial septicemiaPiscirickettsia salmonisSalmonidsInactivatedInactivated P. salmonisIPChileEvensen, 2016; https://www.pharmaq.no/products/injectable/
Motile Aeromonas septicemia (MAS)Aeromonas spp.Striped catfishInactivatedA. hydrophila
(serotype A and B)		IPVietnamhttps://www.pharmaq.no/; ALPHAJECT Panga 2
Wound DiseaseMoritella viscosaSalmonidsInactivatedInactivated M. viscosaIPNorway, UK, Ireland, Icelandhttps://www.pharmaq.no
TenacibaculosisTenacibaculum maritimumTurbotInactivatedInactivated T. maritimumIPSpainhttps://www.hipra.com/
IHNV: Infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus; IPNV: Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus; ISAV: Infectious salmon anemia virus; SVCV: Spring viremia of carp virus; KHV: Koi herpesvirus; ISKNV: Infectious spleen and kidney necrosis virus; IM: Intramuscular injection; IP: Intraperitoneal injection; IMM: Immersion; * denotes country or region where the vaccine is licensed and sold.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, J.; Bruce, T.J.; Jones, E.M.; Cain, K.D. A Review of Fish Vaccine Development Strategies: Conventional Methods and Modern Biotechnological Approaches. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 569. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7110569

AMA Style

Ma J, Bruce TJ, Jones EM, Cain KD. A Review of Fish Vaccine Development Strategies: Conventional Methods and Modern Biotechnological Approaches. Microorganisms. 2019; 7(11):569. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7110569

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Jie, Timothy J. Bruce, Evan M. Jones, and Kenneth D. Cain. 2019. "A Review of Fish Vaccine Development Strategies: Conventional Methods and Modern Biotechnological Approaches" Microorganisms 7, no. 11: 569. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7110569

APA Style

Ma, J., Bruce, T. J., Jones, E. M., & Cain, K. D. (2019). A Review of Fish Vaccine Development Strategies: Conventional Methods and Modern Biotechnological Approaches. Microorganisms, 7(11), 569. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7110569

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