Next Article in Journal
Outbreak of Mortality Associated with Acipenser Iridovirus European (AcIV-E) Detection in Siberian Sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) Farmed in Sweden
Next Article in Special Issue
Mucosal Barrier Functions of Fish under Changing Environmental Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Addendum: Lindseth, A. and Lobel, P.S. Underwater Soundscape Monitoring and Fish Bioacoustics: A Review. Fishes 2018, 3, 36
Previous Article in Special Issue
Workflow for the Targeted and Untargeted Detection of Small Metabolites in Fish Skin Mucus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fishes
Volume 3
Issue 4
10.3390/fishes3040041
fishes-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Biological and Ecological Roles of External Fish Mucus: A Review

by
Miriam Reverter
1,2,*,
Nathalie Tapissier-Bontemps
2,3,
David Lecchini
3,4,
Bernard Banaigs
2,4 and
Pierre Sasal
2,4
1
ISEM, IRD, CNRS, EPHE, Institut of Evolution of Montpellier, Université de Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France
2
Centre des Recherches et Observatoire de l’Environnement, PSL Research University, EPHE-UPVD-CNRS, CRIOBE USR 3278, 66860 Perpignan, France
3
Laboratoire d’Excellence “CORAIL”, BP 1013, 98729 Papetoai, Moorea, French Polynesia
4
Centre des Recherches et Observatoire de l’Environnement, PSL Research University, EPHE-UPVD-CNRS, CRIOBE USR 3278, BP 1013, 98729 Papetoai, Moorea, French Polynesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fishes 2018, 3(4), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes3040041
Submission received: 20 September 2018 / Revised: 3 October 2018 / Accepted: 3 October 2018 / Published: 9 October 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mucosal Health in Aquaculture Organisms)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fish mucus layers are the main surface of exchange between fish and the environment, and they possess important biological and ecological functions. Fish mucus research is increasing rapidly, along with the development of high-throughput techniques, which allow the simultaneous study of numerous genes and molecules, enabling a deeper understanding of the fish mucus composition and its functions. Fish mucus plays a major role against fish infections, and research has mostly focused on the study of fish mucus bioactive molecules (e.g., antimicrobial peptides and immune-related molecules) and associated microbiota due to their potential in aquaculture and human medicine. However, external fish mucus surfaces also play important roles in social relationships between conspecifics (fish shoaling, spawning synchronisation, suitable habitat finding, or alarm signals) and in interspecific interactions such as prey-predator relationships, parasite–host interactions, and symbiosis. This article reviews the biological and ecological roles of external (gills and skin) fish mucus, discussing its importance in fish protection against pathogens and in intra and interspecific interactions. We also discuss the advances that “omics” sciences are bringing into the fish mucus research and their importance in studying the fish mucus composition and functions.

1. Introduction

External (skin and gill) mucus is the main surface of exchange between fish and their surrounding environment, and thus plays a key role in intra- and interspecific chemical communication [1,2]. Mucus acts as a dynamic physical and biochemical barrier, displaying numerous biological and ecological roles such as osmoregulation [3,4], protection against abrasion [5], protection against environmental toxins and heavy metal toxicity [6], parental feeding [7], protection against pathogens [8], and chemical communication [9]. Teleost mucus is similar to mammalian mucus and is mainly composed of mucins [3]. Fish mucus also contains numerous immune molecules, such as lysozymes, immunoglobulins, complements, lectins, and antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) [10], and other molecules like mycosporine-like amino acids (MAAs) [11], toxins, and kairomones—uncharacterized semiochemicals that mediate interspecific interactions by providing information that benefits individuals of another species and harms the emitter [12,13].
Composition of fish mucus and its rheological properties are vital for the maintenance of mucus functions [14]. Mucus surfaces are dynamic matrices and their composition varies among fish species and with endogenous (sex and developmental stage) and exogenous factors (stress, water temperature, pH and infections) [15]. Stress conditions (e.g., handling stress, confinement, food deprivation, exposure to toxic substances) can change the mucous production and composition (e.g., level of proteins and immune molecules), compromising fish health and increasing the fish susceptibility to bacterial pathogens [16,17,18,19]. Mucus viscoelasticity determines its ability to block many types of motile bacteria [20], and several studies showed that fish tend to increase their mucus secretion and change their composition when exposed to pathogens [21,22,23], which may contribute to the defence against these pathogens. Furthermore, pathogen infections (e.g., virus, bacteria) can also alter the mucosal microbiome of fish, facilitating the increase of pathogenic bacteria [24,25].
Fish mucus research has increased in the last ten years mainly due to the discovery of numerous bioactive molecules (antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal, and antiparasitic) and their potential application in human medicine and in aquaculture [26,27,28]. Furthermore, the study of external fish mucus provides nonlethal alternatives for the early detection of infections [29,30,31] and for monitoring the impact of environmental pollutants on fish health [32,33,34]. To date, most research on fish mucus has focused on immune-related molecules and AMPs, but few studies have analysed other mucus molecules and their ecological roles in the environment. Secondary metabolites, for example, even though known to play a key role in the communication of a wide range of species, including plants, invertebrates, and microorganisms, have rarely been studied in fish tissues or mucus [35]. There are currently numerous research studies and review articles investigating specific components of fish mucus (e.g., immune molecules [36], antimicrobial peptides [26], and bacterial communities [37]), but to the best of our knowledge, no recent study (beyond Shepard, 1994 [4]) has investigated the importance of fish mucus for both the fish and the ecosystem. This review analyses the current state of knowledge about the roles of external fish mucus in order to highlight the importance of fish mucus in the marine ecosystem, to identify gaps in knowledge, and to provide future directions. We describe the different biological (antimicrobial, immune-related, and UV protection roles of the fish mucus components as well as the fish mucus roles in intra and interspecific interactions. We also review and evaluate the use of the different “omics” technologies (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) on fish mucus research and their potential to discover novel mucus components and deepen the understanding of the fish mucus functions.

2. Mucus Production

The mucus matrix is produced by goblet, club, and sacciform cells found in the fish epithelium [4,20]. In fish, few studies have examined the excretion or delivery of molecules other than mucins to the mucus layers, though it seems that the mode of delivery could be conserved [36]. Proteins could be transported to the mucus layer by the classical delivery of extracellular material, where proteins are synthesized by ribosomes on the rough endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and then delivered to the cell membrane through the Golgi complex [38]. Proteins (synthesized in the cytosol) and other molecules could also be delivered to the mucus layers via transport routes directly over the cell membrane either by transporters or through channels or other nonclassical mechanisms such as membrane vesicles like exosomes and microvesicles [39,40]. Dead epidermal cells could also be a source of mucus proteins and other molecules [36]. However, it is important to note that molecules that are released from cellular debris might still play important functions in the mucus layer. For example, it is known that proteins can have additional functions beyond their known functions [41]. The commensal microbiota community (bacteria and fungi) could also be a source of varied mucus molecules such as antimicrobial peptides and secondary metabolites [42,43,44].

3. Mucus Sampling and Analysis

The study of external fish mucus is becoming more popular as it provides nonlethal alternatives for both detecting fish infections and monitoring the environmental pollutants [29,30,31,32,33,34]. External fish mucus is most often sampled by gently scraping (e.g., with cell scraper or spatula) the external surfaces of a fish (body, fins, gills), avoiding ventral areas in order to avoid intestinal or sperm contaminations [45,46,47,48]. However, a recurrent issue with this method is the possible contamination of the mucus from other tissues such as blood or epithelial cells during fish mucus collection. The use of adsorbing materials like filter paper [49] or cotton swabs [50] has also been used in fish mucus collection as a strategy to avoid epithelial contamination. Raj et al. [51] showed that the use of cotton swabs removed the upper most layers of epidermis, whilst the use of filter paper allowed mucus removal without apparent damage of the epithelial cells. A recent study showed that the metabolome of mucus samples obtained through absorption displayed the highest repeatability, whilst those from scrapped mucus displayed the most variability [52]. Other strategies to collect fish mucus include rinsing the fish surfaces with different solutions [53], aspirating the fish mucus using a vacuum cleaner [54], and the use of plastic bags filled with different solutions [55,56].
Histocytochemical techniques such as histochemistry, immunohistochemistry, or even electron microscopic cytochemical methods have been traditionally used to study the distribution of molecules in fish epithelial and mucus layers [57,58,59]. The application of immunohistochemistry techniques provides the advantage of detecting molecules in situ while avoiding mucus contamination; however, these techniques are limited to molecules for which their antibodies have been identified [60,61]. In contrast, the recently developed matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization–imaging mass spectrometry (MALDI–IMS) enables the study of spatial molecular arrangements in tissue sections without the need of target-specific reagents. Compared to immunochemistry where a single antigen is typically studied, imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) enables the measurement of thousands of analytes in parallel, while allowing for the study of conventional histology [62]. The main advantage of MALDI–IMS is the broad spectrum of analytes that can be studied with this in situ technique ranging from proteins and peptides to lipids and secondary metabolites [63]. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization–imaging mass spectrometry (MALDI–IMS) has been successfully used to highlight the localization of saponins in the mucus layer of the sea star Asterias rubens [64], and it presents a great potential for the discovery of new fish mucus molecules, a means to study the spatial distribution of those molecules, and the identification of new extraction techniques.

4. Mucus Biological Activities

The mucus gel matrix is primarily comprised of O-glycosylated proteins (GPs) called mucins, but it also contains a diverse array of other molecules such as (1) proteins (structural proteins, immune-related proteins, and antimicrobial peptides and proteins)(reviewed by Brinchmann 2016 [36]), (2) lipids [65], and (3) smaller molecules such as crinotoxins [66]—fish epidermal toxins not associated with any venom apparatusand MAAs [11] that display a wide array of biological roles (Table 1). Fish mucosal surfaces also harbor a diverse community of organisms (bacteria, fungi, and viruses) that play a major part in maintaining host health and homeostasis (reviewed by Gomez et al. [8], Llewellyn et al. [67], and Kelly and Salinas [37]). Since fish mucus is the main barrier against infections, all its components (molecules and microbiota) might coordinate to block pathogen entrance by deploying different antimicrobial activities and participating in immune responses in a similar way as observed in rodents [68,69,70] (Table 1).

4.1. Antimicrobial Components

Many antimicrobial molecules have been found in fish external mucus including pore-forming glycoproteins [71], enzymes (e.g., chitinases with antifungal activity) [90], proteins (e.g., apoliporotein-1, warm temperature acclimation protein WAP65) [74,99,102], and several crinotoxins [13,103] (Table 1). Antibacterial peptides (AMPs), which are one of the main molecules to fight pathogens, have also been observed in fish mucus [72] (Table 1). Conventional AMPs found in fish mucus include the α-helical peptides piscidins (moronecidins, pleurocidins, dicentracins, and chrysopsins [73,74,75]), other linear peptides like pardaxin and pelteobagrin [77,78], and the cysteine-rich AMPs defensins [79,80] (reviewed by Smith et al. [81] and Masso-Silva and Diamond [72]). While most AMPs are derived from a biologically inactive proprotein that is processed to the active form, some AMPs are derived from larger, functional proteins that have primary functions other than antibacterial activities [88]. Several histones (H1, H2A, H2B) with antibacterial, antifungal and antiparasitic activities have been identified in skin mucus of fish [45,87], and several AMPs derived from terminal parts of histones have been described including parasin-I, hipposin, salmon antimicrobial peptide SAMP H1, and oncorhyncin II [82,83,84,85]. Other antibacterial proteins found in fish mucus include L-amino acid oxidases (LAOs) such as Sebastes schlegeli antibacterial protein (SSAP), ribosomal proteins such as L40, L36A, L35, and S30, and hemoglobin-like proteins (Hb-β) [45,46,88,89].
Mucus commensal microbiota play a key role in controlling opportunistic pathogens; however, the mechanisms involved are not fully understood yet [104,105]. Until recently, the control of pathogens by commensal bacteria was thought to be a result of mutually competitive relationships [106]; however, recent studies are showing specific mechanisms by which commensal bacteria could be recognized by the host and control pathogen proliferation [37,107]. For example, Sepahi et al. [108] found that Flectobacillus major from external mucosal surfaces of rainbow trout produced sphingolipids that induced immunoglobulin T (IgT) production, shaped teleost B cells and antibody responses, and were able to control the growth of other symbionts. Other studies found antibacterial and antifungal activities in bacterial strains isolated from fish mucus, suggesting microorganism production of specialized metabolites that could control host pathogens development [109,110].

4.2. Immune-Related Components

Teleost fish possess an active mucosal immune system (reviewed by Esteban et al. [15] and Salinas, 2015 [10]). The external mucosa-associated lymphoid tissues (MALT) found in fish include skin-associated lymphoid tissue (SALT), the gill-associated lymphoid tissue (GIALT), and the nasopharynx-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT) [10]. The main cellular components of fish innate immunity observed in mucosal surfaces are leukocytes, mast/eosinophilic granule cells (EGCs), mucosal dendritic cells (DSs), macrophages, and granulocytes [8].
Fish mucus is also enriched with a multitude of immune-related proteins such as lysozymes, phosphatases, esterases, proteolytic enzymes, complement factors, lectins, immunoglobulins, and C-reactive proteins that attempt to eliminate pathogens and launch the immune cascade when an infection occurs [111] (Table 1). Two isoforms of lysozymes (bacteriolytic enzyme) that are similar to goose (g)- and chicken (c)-type in vertebrates have been detected in fish mucus [98]. Acid and alkaline phosphatases and esterases are important enzymes found in fish mucus that act as antibacterial agents and can be potential stress indicators in fish skin mucus [55,98]. Different types of proteases (trypsins, metalloproteases, cathepsins, and aminopeptidases) have been identified in fish skin mucus, with serine and metalloproteases being the most predominant [15]. Several complement components such as C7, C3, and C1q have been identified in skin and intestine mucus of several fish species [112,113]. Immunoglobulins (IgM and IgT/IgZ) are major components in fish mucus, with IgT/IgZ playing major roles in fish mucosal immunity [100,114,115].
Other molecules involved in innate immunity such as glycoproteins like transferrin [116] or immunomodulating carbohydrates such as misgurnan [91,92] have been described in fish skin mucus. Finally, is it worth mentioning that despite the main antibacterial activity of antimicrobial peptides, some fish mucus AMPs have also been found to modulate B cell functions, and thus play an important role in the innate immune system [117].

4.3. Other Activities

Fish mucus contains other MAAs that perform a photo protective function against solar radiation [11] (Table 1). To date, three different MAAs have been identified in fish mucus: palythene, asterina-33, and mycosporine-N-methylamine serine, with different species of fish presenting different combinations of MAAs [101].
Furthermore, some studies have also shown cytotoxic activities of external fish mucus against specific cancer cell lines, indicating the potential of fish mucus in the development of new pharmacological antitumoral strategies [68,118].
Specialized metabolites have scarcely been studied in fish mucus; however, with the development of high-throughput techniques such as metabolomics this will likely change in the upcoming years, which might reveal new biological activities of fish mucus.

5. Mucus Roles in Ecological Interactions

External fish mucus is involved in very important ecological roles, in both intra and interspecific communication (Table 2).

5.1. Intra-Specific Communication

Mucus cues serve in communication among conspecifics, either as attracting cues enabling the finding of suitable habitats or partners or as alarm cues, alerting to danger [9,135,136] (Table 2). Although most of the studies on conspecific cues have focused on fish odor, with no particular attention to fish mucus, it is logical to think that skin odorant cues are probably excreted through fish mucus. Conspecific cues are known to enable different migratory fish species to find their habitats [136,137]. Leonard et al. [9] found that conspecific mucus trails enable suitable habitat finding of the waterfall climbing Hawaiian gobioid Sicyopterus stimpsoni. Chemical cues from conspecifics also play an important role in fish shoaling [138,139]. For example, phosphatidylcholines from skin mucus were found to induce school forming in young catfish (Plosotus lineatus) [119,120]. Reproduction and male and female synchronisation of spawning relies in the release of pheromones in the water [140,141]. Although pheromones are often released through urine, gill diffusion, or bile salts [142,143,144], some studies found several attractants in fish skin mucus [136,137,138]. For example, Salgio and Fauconneau [121,122] suggested that skin mucus amino acids from catfish, goldfish, and European eel could have a role in the social relations of these species. In contrast, Huertas et al. [123] found a high concentration of apolar odorants in skin mucus of European eel (Anguilla anguilla), which were not characterized, but their polarities suggest they could be sex steroids, prostaglandins, or related metabolites, indicating a possible role of fish mucus in the chemical communication of eel reproduction. Tetrodotoxin (TTX), which has also been found in fish mucus, is also known to act as a sex pheromone that attracts males towards fertile females [124,135].
The release of alarm signals after injury is a widely reported mechanism in fish that produces an alarm response in conspecifics with the ultimate objective of avoiding the source of danger [145]. Several studies have shown that conspecific skin extracts can elicit alarm responses, suggesting the release of alarm cues from club cells through the fish external mucous layers [146,147]. In a recent study, chondroitins—linear, heterogeneous polymers, made of disaccharides variably sulfated, which have been previously identified in fish mucus [148]—were identified as fish odorants triggering fear responses in zebrafish [125]. Zebrafish exposed to purified chondroitin exhibited alarm behaviour, darting, slow swimming, and bottom dwelling [125].

5.2. Interspecific Communication

Studies have also shown that epidermal and gill mucus substances can act as infochemicals in different interspecific interactions, such as in prey–predator relationships, parasite–host interactions, and symbioses (Table 2). Fish mucus molecules can be detected by a wide range of organisms and can generate different types of responses. For example, a recent study found that the absence of N-acetylneuraminic acid (Neu5Ac) in skin mucus of clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris), protect the fish from being stung by the anemone Hetractis magnifica, whose toxin release is triggered by the detection of Neu5Ac [149]. Several studies have shown that different pathogenic bacteria exhibit positive chemotaxis towards their hosts’ mucus [150,151]. Although specific molecules responsible for this activity have not yet been identified, O’toole et al. [126] suggested that free amino acids and carbohydrates could act as chemoattractant molecules in trout mucus (skin and intestinal) while Klesius et al. [127] suggested that a lectin-like substance might be responsible for bacterial chemotaxis in catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). In recent studies, Padra and colleagues found that fish mucosal sialic acids and specifically N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNac) play an important role in the pathogenic bacteria Aeromonas salmonicida growth and binding to its host [152,153].
Chemodetection of fish mucus and behavior modification have also been reported in other parasites such as the actinospores from oligochaetes, myxozoans, and ectoparasites like copepods [127,128,129,130,131,154,155,156]. Kallert et al. [128] found that free nucleosides, which are continuously released in trout mucus (inosine, 2′-deoxyinosine and guanosine), stimulated myxozoan attachment. Another study showed that WAP65-2 glycoprotein from tiger pufferfish (Takifugu rubripes, Tetradontidae) skin mucus induced attachment of Neobenedenia girellae oncoramicidia (Monogenea, capsalidae) [129]. Tetrodotoxin from grass pufferfish (Takifugu niphobles) could also act as an attractant for the infective copepodids stages of Pseudocaligus fugu [155]. Similarly, it is known that sea lice specifically locate and recognize their salmonid hosts by chemodetection [131], and a recent study has shown that cathelicidin peptides isolated from salmon mucus promoted the development of the frontal filament of the sea lice Caligus rogercresseyi [156]. A rather curious case is the protective effect of mucous cocoons of parrotfishes against gnathiid parasites, although it is yet unknown whether this protective effect is due to the chemical or physical properties of the mucous barrier [157].
Fish mucus substances often act as semiochemicals in predator-prey relationships, either as predator deterrents or as signals for both predators and prey. For example, it is known that pardaxin (antimicrobial peptide), pavoninins, and mosesins (monoglycosidic cholestanoids) secreted by several species of soles repel sharks by acting on their olfactory senses [133]. Tetrodotoxin from puffer fish has also been reported to repel predation by groupers [134,158]. Purcell and Anderson [12] found that Physalia physalis could identify its prey using chemical cues from fish epidermal mucus, although the chemical nature of these kairomones remains unknown. Several organisms are also able to identify chemicals in fish mucus to detect predators and to avoid predation. Several studies indicate that nocturnal dial vertical migration (DVM) in zooplankton is affected by uncharacterized kairomones present in mucus of planktivorous fish [2,159]. Forward and Rittschof [159] proposed that disaccharide degradation products of predator mucus containing sulfated and acetylated amines can serve as kairomones, whereas Beklioglu et al. [2] suggested that both fish and mucus-dwelling bacteria interact in the release of kairomones. Recent research showed that the polychaete Nereis developed chemosensory mechanisms for predator detection (chemical cues from fish mucus) to minimize predation risks [160].
Goby epidermal toxins and their ecological implications are well studied and provide a good example of the importance and complexity of fish mucus molecules in ecosystem dynamics. Coral gobies are known to possess different epidermal mucus toxins that exhibit predator deterrence and parasite avoidance [66,161]. Recent studies have shown how goby mucus substances play a key role in the mutualistic association between gobies and corals [162,163]. Acropora corals use chemicals to attract gobies when attacked by toxic seaweeds, and in turn, gobies trim the seaweed and increase their own mucus toxicity, protecting them against predators and parasites [163]. At the same time, goby skin mucus repels corallivores, protecting corals from predation [161]. However, even though the ecological role of goby epidermal mucus toxins is well studied, their chemical structures are still unknown.
The study of chemical mediation in marine ecosystems is vital to understanding ecosystem dynamics and to understanding how ecosystems can respond and adapt to changing conditions. Fish chemical mediation is still poorly understood, with very few examples where fish mucus molecules have been elucidated and their ecological roles identified. As previously shown for TTX, a single molecule can have multifunctional properties. Species, sex, and tissue specific differences in the distribution of TTX render unclear the exact function of this molecule in pufferfish. Depending on the concentration, TTX may function as a chemical defence against predators, as an attractant for parasites, or as a chemical pheromone during spawning. These mucus molecules of keystone significance are vital in structuring ecological communities and, therefore, a deeper understanding is needed [164]. Research on fish mucus, coupled with the development of new technologies will enhance our collective understanding of how fish interact with and respond to their environment.

6. Use of “Omics” in Fish Mucus Research

The field of fish mucus research is growing rapidly [36,37,165]. Advances in high-throughput “omics” technologies such as genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics allow the simultaneous study and identification of numerous genes and molecules and has, therefore, a huge potential for discovering unreported molecules and functions in fish mucus [166,167]. Developments in the field of genomics facilitate the study of genes in fish mucus, and are allowing the rapid expansion of microbiomics (microbiome characterisation) [37,168]. A recent study published by Carda-Diéguez et al. [169] sequenced the DNA of European eel skin mucus and found evidence of the role of fish mucus surfaces as natural niches for aquatic mucosal pathogen evolution.
Transcriptomics, which is the study of the complete set of RNA transcripts that are produced by the genome, the transcriptome, is also a powerful tool for the discovery of new genes involved in mucosal immunity and can reveal important aspects of mucosal functions such as secretion, microbial pathogenesis, host immune responses, as well as the kinetics for these responses [166,170,171,172]. The biological interpretation of RNA-seq (RNA sequencing) (whole transcriptome sequencing) remains challenging and depends on availability of well-annotated genomes, which remain uncommon in nonmodel and noncommercial fish species [166]. Gene expression and transcriptomics have been successfully used to characterize the mucosal responses following bacterial infections in fish and after salmon smoltification [173,174,175,176]. A recent genome study of Atlantic salmon found seven putative mucin genes with tissue-specific transcription patterns, and it revealed that mucin transcription is regulated differently by different aquaculture stressors, providing new insights into mucosal health [177].
Proteomics, which is the study of the proteins expressed by a biological entity, has been the most used high-throughput tool in fish mucus research so far [36]. Several reference skin mucus proteomes have been published for commercial fish species such as discus fish (Symphysodon aequifasciata) [178], Atlantic cod [93], European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) [179,180], gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) [102], and lumpsucker (Cyclopterus lumpus) [167]. The use of high-throughput techniques such as proteomics allows for the pursuit of comprehensive comparative studies to better understand fish mucus dynamics. Proteomics studies have cast light on fish mucus dynamics of infected fish [181,182,183], overcrowding [184], chronic stress [185], and fish exposed to different diets [186].
Metabolomics is the comprehensive study of the small molecules of an organism (metabolome), and provides a snapshot of the state of an organism at a certain time under specific conditions [187]. Since metabolites are the end products of regulatory processes, their levels can be regarded as the ultimate response of biological systems to genetic or environmental changes, making metabolomics extremely useful to understanding organism responses and for biomarker discovery [188]. The study of the fish mucus metabolome can assist in the discovery of mucus molecules, but also in gaining understanding on the processes and functions in which fish mucus is involved. However, the fish mucus metabolome remains largely unexplored, with currently only three published studies [49,52,189]. Ekman et al. [49] studied the skin mucus metabolome of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) males and females exposed to bisphenol A and found that it was highly sexually dimorphic. Reverter et al. [189] studied the gill mucus metabolome of several butterflyfishes in relation to different fish traits (geographic site, type of habitat, species taxonomy, phylogeny, diet, and parasitism level) and found that diet was the main factor influencing the gill mucus metabolome. Finally, similar to other omics technologies, fish mucus metabolomics studies remain challenging due to the high amount of data obtained and the lack of information on fish metabolites and specialized databases, which render metabolite identification extremely difficult.
Finally, the integration of different omics techniques, although it is currently a major challenge, will contribute greatly to the advancement of fish mucus research and the understanding of the fish mucus system as a whole. Omics integration provides new opportunities to uncover pathways and processes that otherwise would remain undetected [190].

7. Summary and Conclusions

In summary, fish mucus surfaces are dynamic layers that display important functions in fish, playing major roles in physiological functions such as osmoregulation and protection against infections, but also in intra- and interspecific communication [2,4]. Mucus contains a wide variety of biologically active molecules that take part in numerous roles and biological interactions, some of which have drawn attention as potential candidates for drug development [27]. The study of fish mucus components has exploded in recent years [36,37], but there are still numerous mucus components that need further research in order to better characterize the molecules present, and to clarify their roles. We have discussed the multiple roles of mucus in organism interactions in nature (predator–prey, parasite–host), highlighting the ecological importance of mucus and the need to identify the molecules responsible for these interactions. Identifying the molecules responsible for the chemical mediation between fish mucus and other organisms will allow a deeper understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics and thus will give new insights in the management of parasites in aquaculture. In addition, a better understanding of the shifts and changes in mucus due to biological and physical stressors could help to prevent fish disease outbreaks and to monitor the health of the marine environment. To date, nearly all studies have focused on the study of macromolecules, via multiple techniques such as proteomics, but few studies have tried to elucidate smaller specialized metabolites. We would like to draw attention to the importance of secondary metabolites and their varied bioactivities in better studied species such as marine invertebrates and their potential presence and importance in fish mucus. Furthermore, the development of new disciplines such as metabolomics will allow for the more efficient study of secondary fish metabolites. Recent studies have shown the importance of the microbiome, and its capacity to synthesize bioactive molecules [44,99]. Therefore, the study of the fish mucus microbiome and mycobiome is another promising field for both the discovery of new metabolites and for better comprehension of the mucus itself and its biological and ecological functions. Finally, fish mucus research needs to be approached from an integrative perspective in order to study the entire mucosal system.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Overseas France (MOM Convocatory. HC 217-13) and the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). This research is part of an EPHE PhD thesis supported by a Labex “Corail” doctoral grant awarded to M.R.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Matthew Jackson and Jeanine Almany (CRIOBE, Perpignan, France) for language assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Todd, J.H.; Atema, J.; Bardach, J.E. Chemical communication in social behavior of a fish, the yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis). Science 1967, 158, 672–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Beklioglu, M.; Telli, M.; Gozen, A.G. Fish and mucus-dwelling bacteria interact to produce a kairomone that induces diel vertical migration in Daphnia. Freshwater Biol. 2006, 51, 2200–2206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shephard, K.L. Mucus on the epidermis of fish and its influence on drug delivery. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 1993, 11, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shepard, K.L. Functions for fish mucus. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 1994, 4, 401–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oosten, J.V. Skin and scales. In The Physiology of Fishes; Brown, M.E., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  6. Coello, W.F.; Khan, M. Protection against heavy metal toxicity by mucus and scales in fish. Arch. Env. Contam. Toxicol. 1996, 30, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chong, K.; Joshi, S.; Jin, L.T.; Shu-Chien, A.C. Proteomics profiling of epidermal mucus secretion of a cichlid (Symphysodon aequifasciata) demonstrating parental care behavior. Proteomics 2006, 6, 2251–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Gómez, D.; Sunyer, J.O.; Salinas, I. The mucosal immune system of fish: The evolution of tolerating commensals while fighting pathogens. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 1729–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Leonard, G.; Maie, T.; Moody, K.N.; Schrank, G.D.; Blob, R.W.; Schoenfuss, H.L. Finding paradise: Cues directing the migration of the waterfall climbing Hawaiian gobioid Sicyopterus stimpsoni. J. Fish. Biol. 2012, 81, 903–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Salinas, I. The mucosal immune system of teleost fish. Biology 2015, 4, 525–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zamzow, J.P. Ultraviolet-absorbing compounds in the mucus of shallow-dwelling tropical reef fishes correlate with environmental water clarity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2007, 343, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Purcell, J.E.; Anderson, P.A.V. Electrical responses to water-soluble components of fish mucus recorded from the cnidocytes of a fish predator, Physalia physalis. Mar. Freshwater Behav. Physiol. 1995, 26, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sugiyama, N.; Araki, M.; Ishida, M.; Nagashima, Y.; Shiomi, K. Further isolation and characterization of grammistins from the skin secretion of the soapfish Grammistes sexlineatus. Toxicon 2005, 45, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lai, S.K.; Wang, Y.-Y.; Wirtz, D.; Hanes, J. Micro- and macrorheology of mucus. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2009, 61, 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Esteban, M.A. An overview of the immunological defenses in fish skin. ISRN Immunol. 2012, 853470, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Al-Zaidan, A.S.; Endo, M.; Maita, M.; Gonçalves, A.T.; Futami, K.; Katagiri, T. A toxicity bioassay study concerning the effect of un-ionized ammonia on the mucus cells response originating from the gills of zebrafish Danio rerio. Fish. Sci. 2012, 79, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Terova, G.; Cattaneo, A.G.; Preziosa, E.; Bernardini, G.; Saroglia, M. Impact of acute stress on antimicrobial polypeptides mRNA copy number in several tissues of marine sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). BMC Immunol. 2011, 12, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Easy, R.H.; Ross, N.W. Changes in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar mucus components following short- and long-term handling stress. J. Fish. Biol. 2010, 77, 1616–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Liu, L.; Li, C.; Su, B.; Beck, B.H.; Peatman, E. Short-term feed deprivation alters immune status of surface mucosa in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e74581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cone, R.A. Barrier properties of mucus. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2009, 61, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Gustafsson, J.K.; Navabi, N.; Rodriguez-Piñeiro, A.M.; Alomran, A.H.A.; Premaratne, P.; Fernandez, H.R.; Banerjee, D.; Sjovall, H.; Hansson, G.C.; Linden, S.K. Dynamic changes in mucus thickness and ion secretion during Citrobacter rodentium infection and clearance. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e84430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Rajan, B.; Lokesh, J.; Kiron, V.; Brinchmann, M.F. Differentially expressed proteins in the skin mucus of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) upon natural infection with Vibrio anguillarum. BMC Vet. Res. 2013, 9, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Van Der Marel, M.; Caspari, N.; Neuhaus, H.; Meyer, W.; Enss, M.-L.; Steinhagen, D. Changes in skin mucus of common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., after exposure to water with a high bacterial load. J. Fish. Dis. 2010, 33, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Llewellyn, M.S.; Leadbeater, S.; Garcia, C.; Sylvain, F.-E.; Custodio, M.; Ang, K.P.; Powell, F.; Carvalho, G.R.; Creer, S.; Elliot, J.; et al. Parasitism perturbs the mucosal microbiome of Atlantic salmon. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 43465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Reid, K.M.; Patel, S.; Robinson, A.J.; Bu, L.; Jarungsriapisit, J.; Moore, L.J.; Salinas, I. Salmonid alphavirus causes skin disbyosis in Atlantic salmon (Salmon salar L.) post-smolts. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rajanbabu, V.; Chen, J.-Y. Applications of antimicrobial peptides from fish and perspectives for the future. Peptides 2011, 32, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rakers, S.; Niklasson, L.; Steinhagen, D.; Kruse, C.; Schauber, J.; Sundell, K.; Paus, R. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) from fish epidermis: Perspectives for investigative dermatology. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2013, 133, 1140–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Beck, B.H.; Peatman, E. Mucosal Health in Aquaculture, 1st ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  29. Elliott, D.G.; McKibben, C.L.; Conway, C.M.; Purcell, M.K.; Chase, D.M.; Applegate, L.J. Testing of candidate non-lethal sampling methods for detection of Renibacterium salmoninarum in juvenile Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2015, 114, 21–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Monaghan, S.J.; Thompson, K.D.; Adams, A.; Bergmann, S.M. Sensitivity of seven PCRs for early detection of koi herpesvirus in experimentally infected carp, Cyprinus carpio L., by lethal and non-lethal sampling methods. J. Fish. Dis. 2015, 38, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tavares, G.C.; Costa, F.A.; Santos, R.R.D.; Barony, G.M.; Leal, C.A.G.; Figueiredo, H.C.P. Nonlethal sampling methods for diagnosis of Streptococcus agalactiae infection in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.). Aquaculture 2016, 454, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dzul-Caamal, R.; Olivares-Rubio, H.F.; Salazar-Coria, L.; Rocha-Gómez, M.A.; Vega-López, A. Multivariate analysis of biochemical responses using non-invasive methods to evaluate the health status of the endangered blackfin goodeid (Girardinichthys viviparus). Ecol. Ind. 2016, 60, 1118–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Guardiola, F.A.; Dioguardi, M.; Parisi, M.G.; Trapani, M.R.; Meseguer, J.; Cuesta, A.; Cammarata, M.; Esteban, M.A. Evaluation of waterborne exposure to heavy metals in innate immune defences present on skin mucus of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Fish. Shellfish Immunol. Probiotics 2015, 45, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Meucci, V.; Arukwe, A. Detection of vitellogenin and zona radiata protein expressions in surface mucus of immature juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) exposed to waterborne nonylphenol. Aquat Toxicol. 2005, 73, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hay, M.E. Marine chemical ecology: Chemical signals and cues structure marine populations, communities, and ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2009, 1, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Brinchmann, M.F. Immune relevant molecules identified in the skin mucus of fish using -omics technologies. Mol. BioSyst. 2016, 12, 2056–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Kelly, C.; Salinas, I. Under pressure: Interactions between commensal microbiota and the teleost immune system. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kim, K.C.; Rearick, J.I.; Nettesheim, P.; Jetten, A.M. Biochemical characterization of mucous glycoproteins synthesized and secreted by hamster tracheal epithelial cells in primary culture. J. Biol. Chem. 1985, 260, 4021–4027. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Chua, C.E.L.; Lim, Y.S.; Lee, M.G.; Tang, B.L. Non-classical membrane trafficking processes galore. J. Cell Physiol. 2012, 227, 3722–3730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Nickel, W. The mystery of nonclassical protein secretion. Eur. J. Biochem. 2003, 270, 2109–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Juszczynski, P.; Ouyang, J.; Monti, S.; Rodig, S.J.; Takeyama, K.; Abramson, J.; Chen, W.; Kutok, J.L.; Rabinovich, G.A.; Shipp, M.A. The AP1-dependent secretion of galectin-1 by Reed Sternberg cells fosters immune privilege in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 13134–13139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Bøhle, L.A.; Brede, D.A.; Diep, D.B.; Holo, H.; Nes, I.F. Specific degradation of the mucus adhesion-promoting protein (MapA) of Lactobacillus reuteri to an antimicrobial peptide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 7306–7309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Mansson, M.; Gram, L.; Larsen, T.O. Production of bioactive secondary metabolites by marine vibrionaceae. Mar. Drugs 2011, 9, 1440–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Sanchez, L.M.; Wong, W.R.; Riener, R.M.; Schulze, C.J.; Linington, R.G. Examining the fish microbiome: Vertebrate-derived bacteria as an environmental niche for the discovery of unique marine natural products. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e35398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bergsson, G.; Agerberth, B.; Jörnvall, H.; Gudmundsson, G.H. Isolation and identification of antimicrobial components from the epidermal mucus of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). FEBS J. 2005, 272, 4960–4969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kitani, Y.; Tsukamoto, C.; Zhang, G. Identification of an antibacterial protein as L-amino acid oxidase in the skin mucus of rockfish Sebastes schlegeli. FEBS J. 2007, 274, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Salles, C.M.C.; Gagliano, P.; Leitão, S.; Salles, J.B.; Guedes, H.L.M.; Cassano, V.P.F.; De-Simone, S.G. Identification and characterization of proteases from skin mucus of tambacu, a Neotropical hybrid fish. Fish. Physiol. Biochem. 2007, 33, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liang, Y.; Guan, R.; Huang, W.; Xu, T. Isolation and identification of a novel inducible antibacterial peptide from the skin mucus of Japanese eel, Anguilla Japonica. Prot. J. 2011, 30, 413–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ekman, D.R.; Skelton, D.M.; Davis, J.M.; Villeneuve, D.L.; Cavallin, J.E.; Schroeder, A.; Jensen, K.M.; Ankley, G.T.; Collette, T.W. Metabolite profiling of fish skin mucus: A novel approach for minimally-invasive environmental exposure monitoring and surveillance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 3091–3100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. LaPatra, S.E.; Rohovec, J.S.; Fryer, J.L. Detection of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus in fish mucus. Fish. Pathol. 1989, 24, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Raj, V.S.; Fournier, G.; Rakus, K.; Ronsmans, M.; Ouyang, P.; Michel, B.; Delforges, C.; Costes, B.; Farnir, F.; Leroy, B.; et al. Skin mucus of Cyprinus carpio inhibits cyprinid herpesvirus 3 binding to epidermal cells. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 42, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ivanova, L.; Tartor, H.; Grove, S.; Kristoffersen, A.B.; Uhlig, S. Workflow for the targeted and untargeted detection of small metabolites in fish skin mucus. Fishes 2018, 3, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Flik, G.; van Rijs, J.H.; Wendelaar Bonga, S.E. Evidence for the presence of calmodulin in fish mucus. Eur. J. Biochem. 1984, 138, 651–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Stabell, O.E.; Selset, R. Comparison of mucus collecting methods in fish olfaction. Acta Physiol. Scand. 1980, 108, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ross, N.W.; Firth, K.J.; Wang, A.; Burka, J.F.; Johnson, S.C. Changes in hydrolytic enzyme activities of naïve Atlantic salmon Salmo salar skin mucus due to infection with the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis and cortisol implantation. Dis. Aquatic. Org. 2000, 41, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Subramanian, S.; MacKinnon, S.L.; Ross, N.W. A comparative study on innate immune parameters in the epidermal mucus of various fish species. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2007, 148, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Braun, R.; Arnesen, J.A.; Rinne, A.; Hjelmeland, K. Immunohistological localization of trypsin in mucus-secreting layers of Atlantic salmon; Salmo salar L. J. Fish. Dis. 1990, 13, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mittal, A.K.; Fujimori, O.; Ueda, H.; Yamada, K. Carbohydrates in the epidermal mucous cells of a fresh-water fish Mastacembelus pancalus (mastacembelidae, Pisces) as studied by electron-microscopic cytochemical methods. Cell Tissue Res. 1995, 280, 531–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nakamura, O.; Watanabe, T.; Kamiya, H.; Muramoto, K. Galectin containing cells in the skin and mucosal tissues in Japanese conger eel, Conger myriaster: An immunohistochemical study. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2001, 25, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. De Matos, L.L.; Trufelli, D.C.; de Matos, M.G.L.; da Silva Pinhal, M.A. Immunohistochemistry as an important tool in biomarkers detection and clinical practice. Biomarker Insights 2010, 5, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Burry, R.W. Controls for immunocytochemistry. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2011, 59, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Schwamborn, K.; Caprioli, R.M. MALDI Imaging Mass Spectrometry-painting molecular mictures. Mol. Oncol. Oncoproteomics 2010, 4, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Aichler, M.; Walch, A. MALDI Imaging mass spectrometry: Current frontiers and perspectives in pathology research and practice. Lab. Investig. 2015, 9, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Demeyer, M.; Wisztorski, M.; Decroo, C.; Winter, J.D.; Caulier, G.; Hennebert, E.; Eeckhaut, I.; Fournier, I.; Flammang, P.; Gerbaux, P. Inter- and intra-organ spatial distributions of sea star saponins by MALDI imaging. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407, 8813–8824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lewis, R.W. Fish cutaneous mucus: A new source of skin surface lipid. Lipids 1970, 5, 947–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Munday, P.L.; Schubert, M.; Baggio, J.A.; Jones, G.P.; Caley, M.J.; Grutter, A.S. Skin toxins and external parasitism of coral-dwelling gobies. J. Fish. Biol. 2003, 62, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Llewellyn, M.S.; Boutin, S.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Derome, N. Teleost microbiomes: The state of the art in their characterization, manipulation and importance in aquaculture and fisheries. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. McAuley, J.L.; Linden, S.K.; Png, C.W.; King, R.M.; Pennington, H.M.; Gendler, S.J.; Florin, T.H.; Hill, G.R.; Korolik, V.; McGuckin, M.A. MUC1 cell surface mucin is a critical element of the mucosal barrier to infection. J. Clin. Investig. 2007, 117, 2313–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Bergstron, K.S.B.; Kissoon-Singh, V.; Gibson, D.L.; Ma, C.; Montero, M.; Sham, H.P.; Ryz, N.; Huang, T.; Velcich, A.; Finlay, B.B.; et al. Muc 2 protects against lethal infectious colitis by dissacociated pathogenic and commensal bacteria from the colonic mucosa. PLoS Pathog. 2010, 13, e1000902. [Google Scholar]
  70. Roy, M.G.; Livraghi-Butrico, A.; Fletcher, A.A.; McElwee, M.M.; Evans, S.E.; Boerner, R.M.; Alexander, S.N.; Bellinghausen, L.K.; Song, A.S.; Petrova, Y.M.; et al. Muc5 is required for airway defence. Nature 2014, 505, 412–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ebran, N.; Julien, S.; Orange, N.; Auperin, B.; Molle, G. Isolation and characterization of novel glycoproteins from fish epidermal mucus: Correlation between their pore-forming properties and their antibacterial activities. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2000, 1467, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Masso-Silva, J.; Diamond, G. Antimicrobial peptides from fish. Pharmaceuticals 2014, 7, 265–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Silphaduang, U.; Noga, E.J. Antimicrobials: Peptide antibiotics in mast cells of fish. Nature 2001, 414, 268–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Cole, A.M.; Weis, P.; Diamong, G. Isolation and characterization of pleurocidin, an antimicrobial peptide in the skin secretions of olive flounder. J. Biol. Chem. 1997, 272, 12008–12013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Salerno, G.; Parrinello, N.; Roch, P.; Cammarata, M. cDNA sequence and tissue expression of an antimicrobial peptide, dicentracin; a new component of the moronecidin family isolated from head kidney leukocytes of sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2007, 14, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Lauth, X.; Shike, H.; Burns, J.C.; Westerman, M.E.; Ostland, V.E.; Carlberg, J.M.; Van Olst, J.C.; Nizet, V.; Taylor, S.W.; Shimizu, C.; et al. Discovery and characterization of two isoforms of moronecidin, a novel antimicrobial peptide from hybrid striped bass. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 5030–5039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Oren, Z.; Shai, Y. A class of highly potent antibacterial peptides derived from pardaxin, a pore-forming peptide isolated from Moses sole fish Pardachirus marmoratus. Eur. J. Biochem. 1996, 237, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Su, Y. Isolation and identification of pelteobagrin, a novel antimicrobial peptide from the skin mucus of yellow catfish (Pelteobagrus fulvidraco). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2011, 158, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Casadei, E.; Wang, T.; Zou, J.; Gonzalez-Vecina, J.L.; Wadsowrth, S.; Secombes, C.J. Characterization of three novel beta-defensin antimicrobial peptides in rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss). Mol. Immun. 2009, 46, 3358–3366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Li, H.; Guo, H.; Shan, S.; Qi, C.; Ann, L.; Yang, G. Characterization and expression pattern of a novel β-defensin in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.): Implications for its role in mucosal immunity. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2014, 78, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Smith, V.J.; Desbois, A.P.; Dyrynda, E.A. Conventional and unconventional antimicrobials from fish, marine invertebrates and micro-algae. Mar. Drugs 2010, 8, 1213–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Park, I.Y.; Park, C.B.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, S.C. Parasin I, an antimicrobial peptide derived from histone H2A in the catfish, Parasilurus asotus. FEBS Lett. 1998, 437, 258–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Birkemo, G.A.; Lüders, T.; Andersen, O.; Nes, I.; Nisson-Meyer, J. Hipposin, a histone-derived antimicrobial peptide in Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus L.). Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2003, 1646, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lüders, T.; Birkemo, G.A.; Nissen-Meyer, J.; Andersen Nes, I.F. Proline conformation-dependent antimicrobial activity of a proline-rich histone h1 N-terminal Peptide fragment isolated from the skin mucus of Atlantic salmon. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 2399–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Fernandes, J.M.O.; Molle, G.; Kemp, G.D.; Smith, V.J. Isolation and characterisation of oncorhyncin II, a histone H1-derived antimicrobial peptide from skin secretions of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2004, 28, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Conceição, K.; Monteiro-dos-Santos, J.; Seibert, C.S.; Silva, P.I.; Marques, E.E.; Richardson, M.; Lopes-Ferreira, M. Potamotrygon cf. henlei stingray mucus: Biochemical features of a novel antimicrobial protein. Toxicon 2012, 60, 821–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Robinette, D.; Wada, S.; Arroll, T.; Levy, M.G.; Miller, W.L.; Noga, E.J. Antimicrobial activity in the skin of the channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus: Characterization of broad-spectrum histone-like antimicrobial proteins. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 1998, 54, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Ullal, A.J.; Wayne Litaker, R.; Noga, E.J. Antimicrobial peptides derived from hemoglobin are expressed in epithelium of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus, Rafinesque). Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2008, 32, 1301–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Fernandes, J.M.O.; Smith, V.J. A novel antimicrobial function for a ribosomal peptide from rainbow trout skin. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2002, 296, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fuochi, V.; Volti, G.L.; Camiolo, G.; Tiralongo, F.; Giallongo, C.; Distefano, A.; Petronio-Petronio, G.; Barbagallo, I.; Viola, M.; Furneri, P.M.; et al. Antimicrobial and anti-proliferative effects of skin mucus derived from Dasyatis pastinaca (Lynnaeus 1758). Mar. Drugs 2017, 15, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Qin, C.; Huang, K.; Xu, H. Isolation and characterization of a novel polysaccharide from the mucus of the loach, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus. Carbohydr. Polym. 2002, 49, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, C.; Huang, K.X. Characteristic immunostimulation by MAP, a polysaccharide isolated from the mucus of the loach, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus. Carbohydr. Polym. 2005, 59, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rajan, B.; Fernandes, J.M.O.; Caipang, C.M.A.; Kiron, V.; Rombout, J.H.W.M.; Brinchmann, M.F. Proteome reference map of the skin mucus of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) revealing immune competent molecules. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2011, 31, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Shiomi, K.; Uematsu, H.; Yamanaka, H.; Kikuchi, T. Purification and characterization of a galactose-binding lectin from the skin mucus of the conger eel Conger myriaster. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Comp. Biochem. 1989, 92, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Suzuki, Y.; Tasumi, S.; Tsutsui, S.; Okamoto, M.; Suetake, H. Molecular diversity of skin mucus lectins in fish. Comp. Biochem. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2003, 136, 723–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tsutsui, S.; Nishikawa, H.; Mano, H.; Hirose, H.; Tasumi, S.; Suetake, H.; Suzuki, Y. Possible role of a skin mucus lectin from fugu Takifugu rubripes in excluding marine bacteria from the body surface. Fisheries Sci. 2006, 72, 455–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tsutsui, S.; Komatsu, Y.; Sugiura, T.; Araki, K.; Nakamura, O. A unique epidermal mucus lectin identified from catfish (Silurus asotus): First evidence of intelectin in fish skin slime. J. Biochem. 2011, 150, 501–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Nigam, A.K.; Kumari, U.; Mittal, S.; Mittal, A.K. Comparative analysis of innate immune parameters of the skin mucous secretions from certain freshwater teleosts, inhabiting different ecological niches. Fish. Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 38, 1245–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Easy, R.H.; Ross, N.W. Changes in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) epidermal mucus protein composition profiles following infection with sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part. D 2009, 4, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Xu, Z.; Parra, D.; Gomez, D.; Salinas, I.; Zhang, Y.-A.; Jorgensen, L.G.; Heinecke, R.D.; Buchmann, K.; LaPatra, S.; Sunyer, J.O. Teleost skin, an ancient mucosal surface that elicits gut-like immune responses. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 13097–13102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Eckes, M.J.; Siebeck, U.E.; Dove, S.; Grutter, A.S. Ultraviolet sunscreens in reef fish mucus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2008, 353, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Jurado, J.; Fuentes-Almagro, C.A.; Guardiola, F.A.; Cuesta, A.; Esteban, M.Á.; Prieto-Álamo, M.-J. Proteomic profile of the skin mucus of farmed gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). J. Proteomics 2015, 120, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Nair, M.S.R. Fish skin toxins. In Handhook of Natural Toxins; Marine Toxins and Venoms; Tu, A.T., Ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1988; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  104. Boutin, S.; Audet, C.; Derome, N. Probiotic treatment by indigenous bacteria decreases mortality without disturbing the natural microbiota of Salvelinus fontinalis. Can. J. Microbiol. 2013, 59, 662–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Pérez, T.; Balcázar, J.L.; Ruiz-Zarzuela, I.; Halaihel, N.; Vendrell, D.; de Blas, I.; Múzquiz, J.L. Host–microbiota interactions within the fish intestinal ecosystem. Mucosal Immunol. 2010, 3, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Boutin, S.; Sauvage, C.; Bernatchez, L.; Audet, C.; Derome, N. Inter individual variations of the fish skin microbiota: Host genetics basis of mutualism? PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Kelly, C.; Takizawa, F.; Sunyer, J.O.; Salinas, I. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) secretory component binds to commensal bacteria and pathogens. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Sepahi, A.; Cordero, H.; Goldfine, H.; Esteban, M.A.; Salinas, I. Symbiont-derived sphingolipids modulate mucosal homeostasis and B cells in teleost fish. Sci. Rep. 2017, 6, 39054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Stevens, J.L.; Jackson, R.L.; Olson, J.B. Bacteria associated with lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) exhibit antibacterial activity against known fish pathogens. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2016, 558, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lowrey, L.; Woodhams, D.C.; Tacchi, L.; Salinas, I. Topographical mapping of the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) microbiome reveals a diverse bacterial community with antifungal properties in the skin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol 2015, 81, 6915–6925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Guardiola, F.A.; Cuesta, A.; Arizcun, M.; Meseguer, J.; Esteban, M.A. Comparative skin mucus and serum humoral defence mechanisms in the teleost gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2014, 36, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Shen, Y.; Zhang, J.; Xu, X.; Fu, J.; Li, J. Expression of complement component C7 and involvement in innate immune responses to bacteria in grass carp. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2012, 33, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Fan, C.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Song, J. Functional C1q is present in the skin mucus of Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii). Integr. Zool. 2015, 10, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Sunyer, J.O. Fishing for mammalian paradigms in the teleost immune system. Nat. Immunol. 2013, 14, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Xia, H.; Liu, W.; Wu, K.; Wang, W.; Zhang, X. sIgZ exhibited materinal transmission in embryonic development and played a prominent role in mucosal immune response of Megalabrama amblycephala. Fish. Shelffish Immunol. 2016, 54, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Easy, R.H.; Trippel, E.A.; Burt, M.D.B.; Cone, D.K. Identification of transferrin in Atlantic cod Gadus morhua epidermal mucus. J. Fish. Biol. 2012, 81, 2059–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Zhang, X.J.; Wang, P.; Zhang, N.; Chen, D.D.; Nie, P.; Li, J.L.; Zhang, Y.A. B cells functions can be modulated by antimicrobial peptides in rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss: Novel insights into the innate nature B cells in fish. Front. Immunol. 2017, 4, 388. [Google Scholar]
  118. Balasubramanian, S.; Revathi, A.; Gunasekaran, C. Studies on anticancer, haemolytic activity and chemical composition of crude epidermal mucus of fish Mugil cephalus. Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2016, 4, 438–443. [Google Scholar]
  119. Matsumura, K.; Matsunaga, S.; Fusetani, N. Possible involvement of phosphatidylcholine in school recognition in the catfish, Plosotus lineatus. Zool. Sci. 2004, 21, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Matsumura, K.; Matsunaga, S.; Fusetani, N. Phosphatidylcholine profile-mediated group recognition in fish. J. Exp. Biol. 2007, 210, 1992–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Saglio, P.; Fauconneau, B. Free amino acid concentration in the skin mucus of yellow and silver eel, Anguilla anguilla L. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 1988, 91A, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Saglio, P.; Fauconneau, B. Free amino acid concentration in the skin mucus of goldfish, Carassius auratus L. influence of feeding. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 1985, 82, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Huertas, M.; Hubbard, P.C.; Canario, A.V.M.; Cerda, J. Olfactory sensitivity to conspecific bile fluid and skin mucus in the European eel Anguilla anguilla (L.). J. Fish. Biol. 2007, 70, 1907–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Matsumura, K. Tetrodotoxin as a pheromone. Nature 1995, 378, 563–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Mathuru, A.S.; Kibat, C.; Cheong, W.F.; Shui, G.; Wenk, M.R.; Friedrich, R.W.; Jesuthasan, S. Chondroitin fragments are odorants that trigger fear behaviour in fish. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. O’Toole, R.; Lundberg, S.; Fredriksson, S.A.; Jansson, A.; Nilsson, B.; Wolf-Watz, H. The chemotactic response of Vibrio anguillarum to fish intestinal mucus is mediated by a combination of multiple mucus components. J. Bacteriol. 1999, 181, 4308–4317. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  127. Klesius, P.H.; Shoemaker, C.A.; Evans, J.J. Flavobacterium columnare chemotaxis to channel catfish mucus. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2008, 288, 216–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Kallert, D.M.; Bauer, W.; Haas, W.; El-Matbouli, M. No shot in the dark: Myxozoans chemically detect fresh fish. Int. J. Parasitol. 2011, 41, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Ohashi, H.; Umeda, N.; Hirazawa, N.; Ozaki, Y.; Miura, C.; Miura, T. Purification and identification of a glycoprotein that induces the attachment of oncomiracidia of Neobenedenia girellae (Monogenea, Capsalidae). Int. J. Parasitol. 2007, 37, 1483–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Brooker, A.J.; Shinn, A.P.; Souissi, S.; Bron, J.E. Role of kairomones in host location of the pennellid copepod parasite, Lernaeocera branchialis (L. 1767). Parasitology 2013, 140, 756–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Mordue, A.J.; Birkett, M.A. A review of host finding behaviour in the parasitic sea louse, Lepeophtherius salmonis (Caligidae: Copepoda). J. Fish. Dis. 2009, 32, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Primor, N.; Zadunaisky, J.A.; Murdaugh, H.V.; Boyer, J.L.; Forrest, J.N. Pardaxin increases solute permeability of gills and rectal gland in the dogfish shark (Squalus acanthias). Comp. Biochem. Pysiol. B 1984, 78, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Tachibana, K.; Sakaitanai, M.; Nakanishi, K. Pavoninins: Shark-repelling ichthyotoxins from the defense secretion of the pacific sole. Science 1984, 226, 703–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Tachibana, K.; Gruber, S.H. Shark repellent lipophilic constituents in the defense secretion of the moses sole (Pardachirus marmoratus). Toxicon 1988, 26, 839–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Itoi, S.; Yoshikawa, S.; Asahina, K.; Suzuki, M.; Ishizuka, K.; Sugita, H. Larval pufferfish protected by maternal tetrodotoxin. Toxicon 2014, 78, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  136. Wisenden, B.D.; Barbour, K. Antipredator responses to skin extract of redbelly dace, Phoxinus eos, by free-ranging populations of redbelly dace and fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2005, 72, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Briand, C.; Fatin, D.; Legault, A. Role of eel odor on the efficiency of an eel, Anguilla anguilla, ladder and trap. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2002, 65, 473–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Baker, C.F.; Hicks, B.J. Atraction of migratory inanga (Galaxias maculatus) and koaro (Galaxias brevippinis) juveniles to adult galaxiid odours. N. Z. J. Mar. Sci. Fresh Res. 2003, 37, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Ward, A.J.W.; Currie, S. Shoaling fish can size-assort by chemical cues alone. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2013, 67, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kobayashi, M.; Sorensen, P.W.; Stacey, N.E. Hormonal and pheromonal control of spawning behavior in the goldfish. Fish. Phys. Biochem. 2002, 26, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sorensen, P.W.; Pinillos, M.; Scott, A.P. Sexually mature goldfish release large quantities of androstenedione into the water where it functions as a pheromone. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2005, 140, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Rosenthal, G.G.; Fitzsimmons, J.N.; Woods, K.U.; Gerlach, G.; Fisher, H.S. Tactical release of a sexually-selected pheromone in swordtail fish. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e16994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Felix, A.S.; Faustino, A.I.; Cabral, E.M.; Oliveira, R.F. Noninvasive measurement of steroid hormones in zebrafish holding water. Zebrafish 2013, 10, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Buchinger, T.J.; Siefkes, M.J.; Zielinski, B.S.; Brant, C.O.; Li, W. Chemical cues and pheromones in the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). Front. Zool. 2015, 12, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Smith, R.J.F. Alarm signals in fishes. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 1992, 2, 33–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Pereira, R.T.; Leutz, J.A.C.M.; Valença-Silva, G.; Barcellos, L.J.G.; Barreto, R.E. Ventilation responses to predator odors and conspecific chemical alarm cues in the frillin goby. Physiol. Behav. 2017, 179, 319–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Barbosa Júnior, A.; Magalhães, E.J.; Hoffmann, A.; Ide, L.M. Conspecific and heterospecific alarm substance induces behavioural responses in piau fish Leporinus piau. Acta Ethol. 2010, 13, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Van De Winkel, J.G.J.; Van Kuppevelt, T.H.M.S.M.; Janssen, H.M.J.; Lock, R.A.C. Glycosaminoglycans in the skin mucus of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Comp. Biochem. 1986, 85, 473–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Abdullah, N.S.; Saad, S. Rapid detection of N-acetylneuraminic acid from false clownfish using HPLC-FLD for symbiosis to host sea anemone. Asian J. Appl. Sci. 2015, 3, 858–864. [Google Scholar]
  150. Bordas, M.A.; Balebona, M.C.; Rodriguez-Maroto, J.M.; Borrego, J.J.; Moriñigo, M.A. Chemotaxis of pathogenic Vibrio strains towards mucus surfaces of gilt-head sea bream (Sparus aurata L.). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 1573–1575. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  151. Larsen, M.H.; Larsen, J.L.; Olsen, J.E. Chemotaxis of Vibrio anguillarum to fish mucus: Role of the origin of the fish mucus, the fish species and the serogroup of the pathogen. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2001, 38, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Padra, J.T.; Sundh, H.; Sundell, K.; Venkatakrishnan, V.; Jin, C.; Samuelsson, T.; Karlsson, N.G.; Lindén, S.K. Aeromonas salmonicida growth in response to Atlantic salmon mucins differs between epithelial sites, is governed by sialylated acids and N-Acetylhexosamine-containing O-glycans, and is affected by Ca2+. Infect. Immun. 2017, 85, e00189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Padra, J.T.; Sund, H.; Jin, C.; Karlsson, N.G.; Sundell, K.; Lindén, S.K. Aeromonas salmonicida binds differentally to mucins isolated from skin and intestinal regions of Atlantic salmon in an N-Acetylneuramini acid-dependent manner. Infect. Immun. 2014, 82, 5235–5245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Xiao, C.; Desser, S.S. The longevity of actinosporean spores from oligochaetes of Lake Sasajewun, Algonquin Park, Ontario, and their reaction to fish mucus. J. Parasitol. 2000, 86, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Ito, K.; Okabe, S.; Asakawa, M.; Bessho, K.; Taniyama, S.; Shida, Y.; Ohtsuka, S. Detection of tetrodotoxin (TTX) from two copepods infecting the grass puffer Takifugu niphobles: TTX attracting the parasites? Toxicon 2006, 48, 620–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Nunez-Acuña, G.; Marambio, J.P.; Valenzuela, T.; Wadsworth, S.; Gallardo-Escarate, C. Antimicrobial peptides from Salmon salar skin induce frontal filament development and olfactory/cuticle-related genes in the sea louse Caligus rogercresseyi. Aquaculture 2016, 464, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Grutter, A.S.; Rumney, J.G.; Sinclair-Taylor, T.; Waldie, P.; Franklin, C.E. Fish mucous cocoons: The “mosquito nets” of the sea. Biol. Lett. 2011, 7, 292–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Williams, B.L. Behavioral and chemical ecology of marine organisms with respect to tetrodotoxin. Mar. Drugs 2010, 8, 381–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Forward, R.B.; Rittschof, D. Alteration of photoresponses involved in diel vertical migration of a crab larva by fish mucus and degradation products of mucopolysaccharides. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2000, 245, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Schaum, C.E.; Batty, R.; Last, K.S. Smelling danger –alarm cue responses in the polychaete Nereis (Hediste) diversicolor (Mvller, 1776) to potential fish predation. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e77431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Gratzer, B.; Millesi, E.; Walzl, M.; Herler, J. Skin toxins in coral-associated Gobiodon species (Teleostei: Gobiidae) affect predator preference and prey survival. Mar. Ecol. 2015, 36, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Dirnwoeber, M.; Herler, J. Toxic coral gobies reduce the feeding rate of a corallivorous butterflyfish on Acropora corals. Coral Reefs 2013, 32, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Dixson, D.L.; Hay, M.E. Corals chemically cue mutualistic fishes to remove competing seaweeds. Science 2012, 338, 804–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Ferrer, R.P.; Zimmer, R.K. Molecules of keystone significance: Crucial agents in ecology and resource management, 2013. BioScience 2013, 63, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Reverter, M.; Sasal, P.; Tapissier-Bontemps, N.; Lecchini, D.; Suzuki, M. Characterisation of the gill mucosal bacterial communities of four butterflyfish species: A reservoir of bacterial diversity in coral reef ecosystems. FEMS Microb. Ecol. 2017, 93, fix051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Salinas, I.; Magadan, S. Omics in fish mucosal immunity. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2017, 75, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Patel, D.M.; Brinchmann, M.F. Skin mucus proteins of lumpsucker (Cyclopterus lumpus). Biochem. Biophys. Rep. 2017, 9, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Ao, J.; Mu, Y.; Xiang, L.-X.; Fan, D.; Feng, M.; Zhang, S.; Shi, Q.; Zhu, L.-Y.; Li, T.; Ding, Y.; et al. Genome sequencing of the perciform fish Larimichthys crocea provides insights into molecular and genetic mechanisms of stress adaptation. PLoS Genet. 2015, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Carda-Diérguez, M.; Ghai, R.; Rodriguez-Valera, F.; Amaro, C. Wild eel microbiome reveals that skin mucus of fish could be a natural niche for aquatic mucosal pathogen evolution. Microbiome 2017, 5, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Micallef, G.; Bickerdike, R.; Reiff, C.; Fernandes, J.M.O.; Boxman, A.S.; Martin, S.A.M. Exploring the transcriptome of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) skin, a major defense organ. Mar. Biotechnol. 2012, 14, 559–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Long, Y.; Li, Q.; Zhou, B.; Song, G.; Li, T.; Cui, Z. De Novo assembly of mud loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) skin transcriptome to identify putative genes involved in immunituy and epidermal mucus secretion. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Malachowicz, M.; Wenne, R.; Burzynski, A. De novo assembly of the sea trout (Salmo trutta m. trutta) skin transcriptome to identify putative genes involved in the immune response and epidermal mucus secretion. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Kumari, J.; Zhang, Z.; Swain, T.; Chi, H.; Niu, C.; Bogwald, J.; Dalmo, R.A. Transcription factor T-bet in Atlantic salmon: Characterization and gene expression in mucosal tissues during Aeromonas salmonicida infection. Front. Immunol. 2015, 6, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Li, C.; Beck, B.; Su, B.; Terhune, J.; Peatman, E. Early muscosal responses in blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) skin to Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 34, 920–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Liu, F.; Su, B.; Gao, C.; Zhou, S.; Song, L.; Tan, F.; Dong, X.; Ren, Y.; Li, C. Identification and expression analysis of TLR2 in mucosal tissues of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.) following bacterial challenge. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2016, 55, 654–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Karlsen, C.; Ytteborg, E.; Timmerhaus, G.; Host, V.; Handeland, S.; Jogensen, S.M.; Krasnov, A. Atlantic salmon skin barrier functions gradually enhance after seawater transfer. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Sveen, L.R.; Grammes, F.T.; Ytteborg, E.; Takle, H.; Jorgensen, S.V. Genome-wide analysis of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) mucin genes and their role as biomarkers. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Chong, K.; Sock-Ying, T.; Foo, J.; Toong-Jin, L.; Chong, A. Characterisation of proteins in epidermal mucus of discus fish (Symphysodon spp.) during parental phase. Aquaculture 2005, 249, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Fekih-Zaghbib, S.; Fildier, A.; Barrek, S.; Bouhaouala-Zahar, B. A complementary LC-ESI-MS and MALDI-TOF approach for screening antibacterial proteomic signature of farmed European Sea bass mucus. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2013, 35, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Cordero, H.; Brinchmann, M.F.; Cuesta, A.; Meseguer, J.; Esteban, M.A. Skin mucus proteome map of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Proteomics 2015, 15, 4007–4020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  181. Valdenegro-Vega, V.A.; Crosbie, P.; Bridle, A.; Leef, M.; Wilson, R.; Nowak, B.F. Differentially expressed proteins in gill and skin mucus of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) affected by amoebic gill disease. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2014, 40, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Provan, F.; Jensen, L.B.; Uleberg, K.E.; Larssen, E.; Rajalahti, T.; Mullins, J.; Obach, A. Proteomic analysis of epidermal mucus from sea-lice infected Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J. Fish. Dis. 2013, 36, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Dong, X.; Su, B.; Zhou, S.; Shang, M.; Yan, H.; Liu, F.; Gao, C.; Tan, F.; Li, C. Identification and expression analysis of toll-like receptor genes (TLR8 and TLR9) in mucosal tissues of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.) following bacterial challenge. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2016, 58, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Cordero, H.; Morcillo, P.; Cuesta, A.; Brinchmann, M.F.; Esteban, M.A. Differential proteome profile of skin mucus of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) after probiotic intake and/or overcrowding stress. J. Proteom. 2016, 132, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  185. Pérez-Sánchez, J.; Terova, G.; Simó-Mirabet, P.; Rimoldi, S.; Folkedal, O.; Calduch-Giner, J.A.; Olsen, R.E.; Sitjà-Bobadilla, A. Skin mucus of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.) protein mapping and regulation in chronically stressed fish. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Micallef, G.; Cash, P.; Fernandes, J.M.O.; Rajan, B.; Tinsley, J.W.; Bickerdike, R.; Marin, S.A.M.; Bowman, A.S. Dietary yeast cell wall extract alters the proteome of the skin mucous barrier in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar): Increased abundance and expression of a calreticulin-like protein. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Kosmides, A.K.; Kamisoglu, K.; Calvano, S.E.; Corbett, S.A.; Androulakis, I.P. Metabolomic fingerprinting: Challenges and opportunities. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2013, 41, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Wolfender, J.L.; Glauser, G.; Boccard, J.; Rudaz, S. MS-based plant metabolomics approaches for biomarker discovery. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2009, 4, 1417–1430. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  189. Reverter, M.; Sasal, P.; Banaigs, B.; Lecchini, D.; Lecellier, G.; Tapissier-Bontemps, N. Fish mucus metabolome reveals fish life history traits. Coral Reefs 2017, 36, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Buescher, J.M.; Driggers, E.M. Integration of omics: More than the sum of its parts. Cancer Metab. 2016, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Biological activities of fish mucus molecules. If molecules are reported in more than three fish species, species are not specified.
Table 1. Biological activities of fish mucus molecules. If molecules are reported in more than three fish species, species are not specified.
ActivityMoleculeMolecule FamilyFish SpeciesReference
AntimicrobialGlycoproteinsGlycoproteinsTinca tinca, Anguilla anguilla, Oncorhyncus mykiss[71]
KeratinProteinSeveral species[36]
Apolipoprotein 1ProteinSeveral species[36]
Piscidinsα-Helical AMPSeveral species[72,73]
Pleurocidinsα-Helical AMPPleuronectes americanus[74]
Dicentracinsα-Helical AMPDicentrarchus labrax[75]
Chyrsopsinsα-Helical AMPSparus aurata[72,73]
Moronecidinsα-Helical AMPMorone saxatilis x chrysops[76]
PardaxinAMPPardachirus marmoratus[77]
PelteobagrinAMPPelteobagrus fulvidraco[78]
β-defensinCysteine-rich AMPSeveral species[79,80,81]
AJN-10Cysteine-rich AMPAnguilla japonica[48]
Parasin-1Histone-derived AMPParasilurus asotus[82]
HipposinHistone-derived AMPHippoglossus hippoglossus[83]
SAMP H1Histone-derived AMPSalmo salar[84]
Onchorrhycin IIHistone-derived AMPOnchorhyncus mykiss[85]
β-chain of hemoglobinProteinPomatotrygon cf. henlei[86]
Histones (H1, H2A, H2B)ProteinSeveral species[87,88]
L-amino oxidase (LAOs)ProteinSebastes schlegeli[46]
L40, L36A, L35, S30Ribosomal proteinGadus morhua[45]
Hemoglobin-like proteinProteinIctalurus punctatus[89]
ChitinaseHydrolitic enzymeDasyatis pastinaca[90]
Immune-relatedTransferrinGlycoproteinSeveral species[36]
MisgurnanPolysaccharideMisgurnus anguillicaudatus[91,92]
HSC70, HSP60, HSP90Heat shock proteinSeveral species[36]
Peroxiredoxins Several species[36]
FK-506 binding proteinImmunophilin/ProteinGadus morhua[93]
Cyclophilin AImmunophilin/ProteinGadus morhua[93]
Cystatin BproteinGadus morhua[93]
Mannan binding lectinLectin/proteinGadus morhua[93]
GalectinsLectin/proteinGadus morhua[93]
Concavalin ALectin/proteinGadus morhua[93]
CongerinsLectin/proteinCongus myriaster[94]
AJL-1, AJL-2Lectin/proteinAnguilla japonica[95]
PufflectinLectin/proteinTakifugu rubripes[96]
IntelectinLectin/proteinSilurus asotus[97]
G-type lysozymeLysozyme/proteinSeveral species[15,98]
C-type lysozymeLysozyme/proteinSeveral species[15,98]
Tumor necrosis factor αCytokine, proteinSeveral species[15,98]
Acid and alkaline phosphatasesEnzyme/proteinsSeveral species[98,99]
C1q, C3, C5, C6, C9, Complement factor BComplement/proteinSeveral species[36]
Ig M, Ig TImmunoglobulins/ProteinSeveral species[100]
Interleukins (IL-1β, IL-8, IL-10)Cytokine, proteinSeveral species[15]
CalpainProteinGadus morhua[22]
TrypsinSerine protease/proteinSeveral species[15]
MetalloproteasesProtease/proteinSeveral species[15]
Cathepsin B and LCysteine protease/proteinSeveral species[15]
Cathepsin DAspartic protease/proteinSeveral species[15]
AminopeptidasesProtease/proteinSeveral species[15]
Cellular metabolismUbiquitin Gadus morhua[93]
Gluthathione hydrolase and transferase Gadus morhua[93]
Calreticulin Gadus morhua[93]
Carbohydrate metabolismCitrate synthase Gadus morhua[93]
Enolase andglyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase Gadus morhua[93]
Lipid metabolismPreapolipoprotein AProteinGadus morhua[93]
Fatty-acid binding proteinProteinGadus morhua[93]
UV protectionPalytheneMAAsSeveral species[93]
Asterina-33MAAsSeveral species[93]
Mycosporine-N-methylamine serineMAAsSeveral species[101]
AMPs: Antimicrobial peptides; MAAs: Mycosporine-like amino acids.
Table
Table 2. Fish mucus molecules involved in ecological interactions.
Table 2. Fish mucus molecules involved in ecological interactions.
ActivityMolecule FamilyProducer SpeciesReceptor SpeciesReference
Intra-Specific Interactions
Fish shoalingPhosphatidylcholinesPlosotus lineatusPlosotus lineatus[119,120]
ReproductionAminoacidsCarassius auratus, Anguilla anguillaCarassius auratus, Anguilla anguilla[121,122]
Apolar metabolites (prostaglandin-like)Anguilla anguillaAnguilla anguilla[123]
TetrodotoxinTakifugu niphoblesTakifugu niphobles[124]
Alarm signalingChondroitins (glycosaminoglycan)Danio rerioDanio rerio[125]
Inter-specific interactions
Microbial chemotaxisAminoacids and carbohydratesOnchorhyncus mykissVibrio anguillarum[126]
Lectin-likeIctalurus punctatusFlavobacterium columnare[127]
Free nucleosidesOnchorhyncus mykissMyxobolus cerebralis, Myxobolus pseudodispar, Henneguya nuesslini[128]
GlycoproteinTakifugu rubripesNeobenedenia girellae[129]
TetradotoxinTakifugu rubripesPseudocaligus fugu[130]
Cathelicidins (peptides)Salmo salarCaligus rogercresseyi[131]
Predator repulsionPardaxin (AMP)Pardachirus marmoratusSqualus acanthias[132]
Pavoninin (monoglycosidic cholestanoid)Pardachirus pavoninusMustelus griseus[133]
Mosesin (monoglycosidic cholestanoid)Pardachirus marmoratusNegaprion brevirostris[134]
Grammistins (AMP)Grammistes sexlineatus
Pogonoperca punctata		-[13]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Reverter, M.; Tapissier-Bontemps, N.; Lecchini, D.; Banaigs, B.; Sasal, P. Biological and Ecological Roles of External Fish Mucus: A Review. Fishes 2018, 3, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes3040041

AMA Style

Reverter M, Tapissier-Bontemps N, Lecchini D, Banaigs B, Sasal P. Biological and Ecological Roles of External Fish Mucus: A Review. Fishes. 2018; 3(4):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes3040041

Chicago/Turabian Style

Reverter, Miriam, Nathalie Tapissier-Bontemps, David Lecchini, Bernard Banaigs, and Pierre Sasal. 2018. "Biological and Ecological Roles of External Fish Mucus: A Review" Fishes 3, no. 4: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes3040041

APA Style

Reverter, M., Tapissier-Bontemps, N., Lecchini, D., Banaigs, B., & Sasal, P. (2018). Biological and Ecological Roles of External Fish Mucus: A Review. Fishes, 3(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes3040041

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop