Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

ParasitologiaParasitologia
PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

21 October 2022

26 Pages

Microbial Interactions That Contribute to Gill Disease in Aquaculture

,
,
and
School of Health and Life Sciences, The University of the West of Scotland, Glasgow G72 0LH, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Parasitologia2022, 2(4), 266-291;https://doi.org/10.3390/parasitologia2040023
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The rapid growth in the human population has led to an increased requirement for readily available food sources. The aquaculture industry is a fundamental source for maintaining food supplies; however, it is subjected to mounting pressures to meet supply demands. Thus, limiting factors that negatively impact the cultivation of farmed aquatic organisms is essential. Gill disease is an increasing area of concern, resulting in substantial losses in farmed fish. Several microbial pathogens are known to cause gill disease and, in many instances, multiple pathogens or factors can be involved in the disease, resulting in complex gill disease (CGD). The role of mixed infections in gill disease is largely unknown, as such this review aims to examine data on previous infections and highlight the variety of microbes that might be involved in gill disease. The influence of climate change in the context of CGD is also discussed given the strong links between physicochemical extremes and numerous microbial gill pathogens. Understanding these factors will allow for improved diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to be implemented.

1. Introduction

A large proportion of the aquaculture industry is dedicated to the cultivation of fish species, such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and maintaining good fish health in these environments is a complex and important task. Gill health is an increasing focus for the aquaculture industry as fish loss to gill disease (GD) impacts on economic costs [1].
Fish gills are multifunctional and important in performing gaseous exchange, osmoregulation, excretion of nitrogenous waste, pH regulation and the production of hormones [2], and injury or infection of these can prove fatal to the fish. As fish and their gills are directly exposed to the marine environment, there are constant opportunities for the gills to be invaded by pathogens and/or damaged by toxins and, as the gill is physically delicate and permeable, this structure is further susceptible to harm from external factors [3]. GD is increasingly common in the aquaculture industry and its prevalence relates to several different pathologies, different causative pathogens, and can be influenced by a range of environmental variables or events [3,4,5]. With both pathogenic and non-pathogenic forms of disease, there is significant financial stress on the aquacultural industry with a predicted losses of $84 million in the US annually [6], and 5.8–16.5% of the total earnings within the UK [7].
Farmed fish are exposed to a plethora of different microorganisms, with numerous microbial interactions occurring. Host-associated microorganisms are typically termed the ‘microbiome’. Dysbiosis in the gill microbiome has shown to contribute to GD pathology [8], but it is important to recognise that the environment in which fish live consists of a variety of additional parameters which initiate susceptibility to infection. This can include chemical constituents, salinity, pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen levels [9,10,11,12,13], which in turn can create a stressful environment for teleosts [9,10,14]. If the fish become stressed, have underlying health issues, are exposed to physical damage or immunosuppression [15], microorganisms associated with the reduced health status of the host compose the ‘pathobiome’ [16]. As there are different causes of GD, and cases are often multifactorial, it is important to consider the nature of the pathobiome in diagnosis and treatment. In recent years, this has extended to include changes in additional environmental parameters, such as salinity, pH and temperature, particularly with climate change known to influence these factors [1,17]. Many microorganisms of the pathobiome interact with each other, as well as the host, some live as symbionts with other microorganisms, or have been simultaneously isolated with suspected causative agents, potentially causing co-infection. For example, predatory protist species such as amoebae, have been shown to harbour phagocyte resistant bacteria and as such can act as a vector to other opportunistic pathogens [18]. Indeed, several Vibrio species can survive within N. perurans, the causative agent of amoebic gill disease (AGD) and the impact of this relationship on virulence and survival of the amoebae is unknown [19].
The multifactorial nature of GD makes it difficult to diagnose and treat. In addition, the isolation of multiple potential pathogens from diseased gills can obscure diagnosis, treatment, and research. This review aims to emphasize the importance and diversity of microbial interactions in gill diseases by identifying key pathogens and discussing their influence on disease severity, highlighting the potential pathogenicity of microorganisms causing infectious GD and evaluating the impact of climate change on microbial abundance, species prevalence and their subsequent interactions.

2. Infectious and Complex Gill Disease

There are many types of infectious and non-infectious GD cases reported in marine aquaculture where the specific causative agent or pathogen has been isolated and identified [4]. However, there are an increasing number of cases where the cause of GD is either multifactorial or non-specific, termed ‘Complex Gill Disease’ (CGD). CGD is commonly observed in farmed teleosts and involves multiple putative pathogens, with mixed aetiologies, occurring simultaneously [20].
Several species of economically important farmed teleost are susceptible to GD such as salmon (including Atlantic, chinook, coho [12,21,22,23,24,25]), turbot [24,26], trout (rainbow [22,25] and brown [27,28]) and increasing incidences have been documented worldwide [4,21,23,24,29,30]. This increase has been linked to changes in environmental factors; studies on AGD, caused by the opportunistic pathogen N. perurans [31], have determined that environmental factors such as temperature maximums [13,30,32], periods of low rainfall [22,30] and increased infective load within the environment affect both host and associated microorganisms [14,33]. Importantly, these are all parameters that are increasing in prevalence as a result of climate change [34,35,36]. Additionally, farming site practises also play a role in the development of disease, e.g., biomass of fish within cages, cage distribution, cage cleanliness [12,15,37,38]. These factors can influence fish stress levels, compromising their immune systems and thus, leaving them vulnerable to further infection [15,39]. Additionally, host specific attributes, e.g., genetics [39] and size [40] have been observed to contribute to disease onset and progression [41,42].
As these infections cause a wide range of chronic proliferative and inflammatory problems in the gills, the gills and immune system of the host are more susceptible to further infection from opportunistic pathogens, causing simultaneous gill problems [3,5,43]. GD can occur from numerous causes, i.e., from specific bacterial infections, such as Flavobacteria [29,44,45] or Aeromonas [46,47] and parasitic infections from various causative species such as N. perurans (AGD) [48,49], Desmozoon lepeophtherii [50,51] and Ichthyobodo spp. [52,53].
Whilst efforts are made to identify a causative pathogen and provide a diagnosis during infectious gill disease, evidence is emerging that multiple microorganisms and their interactions may be concurrently responsible and the interactions between the varying organisms may contribute to the severity of infection and disease resolution [3]. During CGD histological examination shows epithelial cell proliferation, necrosis, inflammation (presence of sub-epithelial inflammatory cells) [54] and vascular changes (lamellar haemorrhage/thrombosis) [3,55,56]. External pathologies include increased mucus secretion [4], swollen/shortened gill filaments [3] and fusion of lamellae [4,57]. Skin haemorrhages and/or loss of scales have also been reported in some cases of fish suffering from proliferative gill inflammation, although it is unclear whether these are linked [58]. Behaviourally, fish may swim close to the surface and crowd, as well as display signs of lethargy, loss of appetite and increased respiratory rate [3,57,59,60]—these symptoms are consistent and recurring during GD.
The identification of a primary pathogen is necessary during GD, as effective and timely treatment is critical to host survival [15]. Due to challenges in diagnosis, the umbrella term ‘Complex Gill Disease’ has now come to encompass independent marine gill diseases such as Salmon Gill Poxvirus Disease (SGPVD) [61], Ichthyobodosis/Marine Costiasis [56], Tenacibaculosis [62] as well as multifactorial infections such as Epitheliocystis [57,63,64], Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD) [8], Proliferative Gill Inflammation (PGI) [65] and Proliferative Gill Disease (PGD) [66] and independently, these diseases present certain distinguishable aetiologies which may help identify primary pathogens during CGD. For example, in Salmon Gill Poxvirus infections, histopathology assessment of the gill tissues commonly reveals apoptosis of gill epithelial cells, leading to acute lamellar collapse or chronic gill epithelial hyperplasia. In some cases, the virus may infect other epithelial cells (oral cavity) and/or infect kidney function and clinical signs during SGPVD may present in erratic swimming behaviours [59,67]. In epitheliocystis the formation of cyst-like inclusions in the branchial epithelia of the host can be found and is caused by various intracellular bacteria [68]. Clinical signs may include lethargy and flared opercula as well as visible gill lesions [63]. Ichthyobodosis/Costiasis (caused by Ichthyobodo species) has been shown to cause acute hyperplasia and fusion of the secondary lamellae [56]. Increased melanin levels have also been observed external to the blood vessels of the primary lamellae and increased numbers of goblet cells can be seen in the secondary lamellae of infected gills [56]. External pathologies are also witnessed with Tenacibaculosis (caused by Tenacibaculum spp.) through the presence of ulcers, haemorrhagic and necrotic lesions/corrosion of the skin, fins and tail and haemorrhagic mouth [69]. AGD (caused by Neoparamoeba perurans), can be detected by observing white mucoid patches visible macroscopically on the gills [22], and with a histopathology assessment of gill tissues where hyperplastic lesions and associated amoebae are present [48] as well as fusion of lamellar [70]. Finally, both Proliferative Gill Inflammation (PGI), a non-defined syndrome or disease which causes hyperplasia and inflammation of the gills, and Proliferative Gill Disease (PGD), a non-defined syndrome or disease which causes hyperplasia but no apparent inflammation in the gills, are multifactorial conditions. PGI is associated with Desmozoon lepeophtherii, epitheliocystis and Atlantic salmon paramyxovirus (ASPV; Table 1) and PGD occurs in non-specific marine environments (fresh water PGD is associated with Henneguya [71]). In cases of PGI where Desmozoon lepeophtherii is present, there can also be distinct changes where spores are seen within the cytoplasm of lamellar epithelial cells [72].

Microbial Interactions in Gill Disease with a Focus on AGD

Pathogens that cause infectious GD are under scrutiny in an attempt to understand their pathogenesis, virulence factors and control measures [61,73,74,75,76] and are summarised in Table 1. However, it is also important to understand their role within microbial communities and this will enable further insight into why they cause disease and how diagnostics and fish health can ultimately be improved. For example, in AGD, the causative amphizoic amoebae, N. perurans are normally free-living predators of bacteria [19] making it important to understand the role of N. perurans, not only as a pathogen in AGD, but as a vector for other potential pathogens. Several bacterial species can evade phagocytosis in amphizoic amoeba species [18], including N. perurans, potentially leading to increasingly complex disease pathologies, which hinder accurate diagnosis [19]. Other amoebae have been isolated from diseased gills (Table 1), but little is known as to whether they are involved in gill infection. Different Neoparamoeba (and/or Paramoeba species) have been isolated from cases of AGD. These include N. pemaquidensis [27] and N. branchiphila [77] and whilst their role and characterisation in GD remains uncertain, the examination of subtle differences in the genomes and transcriptomes of virulent and non-virulent species of Neoparamoeba could highlight key factors involved in pathogenesis [78].
During AGD, N. perurans attaches to the gill via the mucosal layer covering the epithelial surface [76]. In response to infection, mucus composition is altered on the gill, and production is increased to limit amoebic load [23,79]. Paradoxically, this could potentially aid the adherence of N. perurans to the epithelial surface and act as a nutrient source during infection for N. perurans and potentially its associated bacteria. N. perurans possess mucosal binding proteins and are capable of secreting proteases with mucolytic activity allowing evasion of the mucosal immune response and permitting infection [76] and putatively facilitating the establishment of other infections. Several species of bacteria have been frequently recovered from fish diagnosed with AGD (Table 1). For example, Tenacibaculum dicentrarch was positively associated with N. perurans presence in AGD biopsies in Australia [8]. Similarly, in Tasmania, Psychroserpens species were only identified in AGD-positive samples suggesting a possible opportunistic co-infection with N. perurans [33,80]. In addition, exposure trials found that the presence of Winogradskyella species during N. perurans infection resulted in a higher disease severity relative to N. perurans only control infections [81]. During an AGD exposure trial, Winogradskyella caused a significant increase in the percentage of AGD-affected filaments compared with controls challenged with Neoparamoeba only; however, these percentages did not increase significantly with an increase in bacterial concentration [82].
Vibrio species can be found intracellularly within N. perurans, potentially existing in a symbiotic manner [19]. The role (if any) they play during AGD infection remains to be investigated. Vibrio harveyi, an endosymbiont in Cryptocaryon irritans, the causative agent of marine cryptocaryonosis, can cause secondary infections [83] and the oyster pathogen Vibrio tasmaniensis interacts with an amoeba belonging to the Vannellidae family (where Vibrio evaded grazing by amoebae [84]). Thus, the survival of Vibrio within N. perurans, and other gill colonising amoebae, should be considered in understanding its role in AGD. Neoparamoeba spp. also contain a kinetoplastid-like endosymbiont (named Perkinsela-like organism; PLO) in close relationship with their nucleus that appears obligatory to amoebic survival [85,86,87]. The obligate endosymbiont itself is related to an ectoparasite of fish, Ichthyobodo necator [86] and for this reason, it is thought that the structure may be involved in the pathogenic capabilities of N. perurans [78] While the exact role of the PLO in pathogenesis of N. perurans remains unknown, genome and transcriptome analyses of the closely related N. pemaquidensis and its associated PLO detailed the interconnected relationship of both metabolisms [88]. For example, synthesis of the antioxidant trypanothione in the PLO is made possible using glutathione and spermidine synthesised by the host and the functionality of biosynthetic pathways such as heme or purine metabolism appear to be reliant on genes from both organisms [88].
Further to the aforementioned findings, species such as betaproteobacteria Candidatus Branchiomonas cysticola and the flavobacterium Tenacibaculum maritimum have been identified as contributors of CGD [8,54]. These pathogens can colonise gills between 12-and 16-weeks post-seawater transfer with D. lepeophtherii and Candidatus B. cysticola appearing most prevalent [20]. As causative agents of CGD are less characterised than AGD further investigations are required to evaluate the virulence potential of other pathogens.
Table 1. Microbial Interactions during Marine Gill Disease (associations and co-infections) and their pathogenicity potential.

3. Climate Change Can Impact Microbial Populations and Interactions

Climate change is a growing global concern and as with many industries, is expected to have a significant impact on aquaculture and marine life’s susceptibility to diseases [17,160]. Although it impacts a variety of aquatic factors such as sea level, turbidity through extreme weather conditions, salinity, pH, temperature and nutrient loading, little is understood about the impact on ecosystems and the microbial communities [35,161]. This is key with regard to evaluating multitrophic levels and the ability of key species to control or contribute to the prevalence of diseases such as AGD and CGD [162].
Further still, research is yet to fully elucidate the impact of anthropogenic influences such as metal and organic pollutants released into the environment on microbial communities and the subsequent effect on fish health [163] and susceptibility to GD. There have however been numerous studies on the impact of temperature change [12]. For example, there has been a noticeable effect of temperature on salmon growth rates, which has been linked to metabolic depression [10]. Salmon grown in higher temperatures, above 15 °C compared to 13 °C, resulted in a chronic stress response [10]. Conversely, in Tasmania, salmon showed preference to temperatures between 16.5–17.5 °C [164], whereas other work witnessed growth in temperatures as high as 22 °C [165]. It is likely that there is a thermal tolerance where the impact on the host depends on the environmental conditions which they are acclimatised to and incremental changes to said environment might cause additional stress and susceptibility to disease. This phenomenon was further investigated through the evaluation of acclimatisation and metabolic requirements during the acquisition of AGD, which determined a minimal impact of acclimation on metabolism, suggesting the temperature-disease interaction may be more complicated than currently thought [166]. It has been demonstrated that temperature is a significant factor in maintaining regular fish immune functions. High temperatures have been shown to cause upregulation of cytokine genes and increases in IgM at 25 °C in rainbow trout (vaccinated with Yersinia ruckeri serotype O1) [167], as well as an increase in the number of neutrophils and lower levels of Ig+ cells in the blood of Atlantic salmon at 18 °C [168]. Problematically, this again does not demonstrate the effect of a habitant’s environment changing, i.e., they could be used to higher or lower temperatures, but how does an incremental increase impact their susceptibility to disease.
They have however shown that warmer temperatures increase amoebic reproduction [33] and elevated stress levels in salmon [14] resulting in a supressed immune system [15]. A study in Scotland demonstrated an increase in AGD severity in Atlantic salmon at 15 °C compared to 10 °C through the analysis of histopathology and N. perurans (described as Paramoeba in this study) load on the gills [14]. Interestingly there was no change in cortisol levels but an increase in glucose and lactate levels at both temperatures, suggesting other environmental changes could be the resulting cause. With regard to CGD, recent work by Jones and Price (2022) observed a statistically significant relationship between elevated seawater temperatures and elevated gill scores of farmed Atlantic salmon, results also highlighted the direct relationship between salinity and gill score however, only in the presence of N. perurans [169]. This work reiterates the influence of temperature on the severity of CGD and the importance of N. perurans infection in the development of CGD.
The long-term impact of climate change could result in the emergence of resistance in both host and pathogen through genetic adaptions that may only be evident through temporal analysis. These adaptations could impact virulence [35] and potentially new emerging infectious diseases may be discovered. Benedicenti and colleagues (2018) explored this and were able to demonstrate that this might have a potential role in virulence of N. perurans by altering the bacterial communities associated with AGD. They also showed that temperature had a significant effect on Pseudomonas growth derived from amoebae cultures, and 30 of the most prevalent bacteria genera—where the growth changes corresponded with the amoebae growth—highlighting an associated bond between amoebae and bacteria, influenced by temperature [33].

4. Conclusions and Research Recommendations

GD is a tremendous challenge in the aquaculture industry and many microorganisms contribute directly to GD or have been isolated during GD cases. The diverse range of terms used in literature to describe similar outbreaks and pathologies have made it challenging to compare cases and draw conclusions [4]. Additionally, the presence of multiple pathogens in GD has made investigating host-pathogen relationships and co-infections convoluted. Although presumed primary and secondary pathogens have been recorded for GD, the challenge remains to successfully culture main offenders (SGPV, D. lepeophtherii and Ca. Branchiomonas cysticola) in vivo [3]. Moreover, the culturing of N. perurans is confounded by bacterial load, which hints at the importance of potential bacterial endosymbionts, and this could be the case. N. perurans are involved in complex intracellular and extracellular interactions which should be investigated thoroughly, with aims to identify potential symbionts that may aid in survival and virulence in AGD, which is an ever-increasing global threat in aquaculture [78].
When investigating potential pathogenicity symbionts of GD causing pathogens, the role of autochthonous organisms present in the microbiome should not be overlooked, as there is the potential for organisms to become infectious under specific circumstances, i.e., infections are dose-dependent [20], where Steinum et al., 2010 detected D. lepeophtherii in a >30 times higher microsporidian load in fish with PGI compared to unaffected fish [112] and Mitchell et al., 2013 found Ca. B. cisticola bacterial loads to coincide with pathological changes in the gills [110]. The significance of the microbiome in teleost aquaculture should also be investigated, in particular, Atlantic salmon, as their susceptibility to GD is well documented but less known are the reasons why they are susceptible. The fact that these teleosts are farmed in both fresh and marine environments may be significant as infectious agents of marine GD (i.e., SGPVD, Epitheliocysts and Ichthyobodo species) are also present in freshwater salmonoid aquaculture. Furthermore, the management and treatment of salmon health may have indirect correlation to CGD outbreaks [12] as it is known that cleaner fish may spread pathogens and also, hydrogen peroxide bathing may compromise gill surface and leave it vulnerable to infection; with this in mind, studies investigating CGD after treatments may address these concerns [4].
The role of environmental factors contributing to GD warrants further research (e.g., temperatures, salinity, pH, as well as the microbial environment), as does the impact of these factors on the associated organisms of GD as well as the relationship the described amoebae have with the natural environment, where knowledge on natural distribution and reservoirs of transmission (particularly N. perurans [12]) are limited. These factors should be examined to aid mitigation strategies.
As the complexity of this disease may prove challenging to provide a specific treatment, mitigation may be the method of alleviating this disease and the pressures associated. Research should also focus on vaccination development for AGD as current studies cannot be truly compared due to differences in temperature, challenge concentration and source of the amoebae and host. To aid this challenge, Hudson and Nowak, 2021 suggest utilising realistic concentrations of amoebae in challenge models, using relevant endpoints to aquaculture industry (e.g., sample time to reinfection or gross gill score) and multiple endpoints to provide more knowledge on the disease [170]. This may also be a viable option for the treatment of CGD, if specific bacteria/viruses are confirmed to promote disease [4].
Overall, the prevention, diagnosis and mitigation strategies used in GD are hindered by a lack of standardised methods (especially AGD, where recent updates to the gill scoring system now encompass multifactorial pathologies [171]). These should aim to develop clear and defined characteristics of disease, along with stage of infection and should also clear up the mixed aetiologies around complex gill disease, this will ultimately improve recording of infection and enhance the literature and data surrounding GD which could advance disease control/treatments.
Future research should aim to discover and validate symbiotic relationships between bacteria and amoebae to uncover potential indicator organisms of AGD outbreaks and CGD, with aims to identify targets for disease control/treatment. Specifically, the intracellular kinetoplast symbiont which N. perurans possess [172]. Even though the PLO was noted to possess SL RNA genes which deviate considerably from other kinetoplastids [86], this intracellular structure might be important in cellular survival and as such, presents an interesting therapeutic target. Significant research has been undertaken to tackle kinetoplast parasites of humans such as Trypanosoma spp. [173] and Leishmania spp. and repurposing strategies used to exploit these organisms may offer an effective approach to tackling AGD.
In conclusion there is a wealth of unknown variables in relation to GD, whether that be in the form of AGD, CGD, or other previously mentioned forms. Evidence suggests it is unlikely to have one cause, and we need to investigate a variety of multifactorial parameters. This includes recognising the current and futuristic impact of climate change, on the host-predator dynamic, the microbiome and pathobiome, as well as how changes in the physicochemical and geochemical parameters impact all of these.

Author Contributions

R.M. and K.R. designed the structure of the review article, critically reviewed and contributed to the manuscript; E.O. conducted the review of the literature and contributed to the manuscript; F.L.H. conceived and designed the review article, critically reviewed the manuscript and coordinated the activities of co-authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a NERC research grant (NE/T012986/1). E.O. was supported by The Scottish Universities Partnership for Environmental Research Doctoral Training Partnership (NE/S007342/1).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Foyle, K.L.; Hess, S.; Powell, M.D.; Herbert, N.A. What Is Gill Health and What Is Its Role in Marine Finfish Aquaculture in the Face of a Changing Climate? Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Evans, D.H.; Piermarini, P.M.; Choe, K.P. The Multifunctional Fish Gill: Dominant Site of Gas Exchange, Osmoregulation, Acid-Base Regulation, and Excretion of Nitrogenous Waste. Physiol. Rev. 2005, 85, 97–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  3. Herrero, A.; Thompson, K.D.; Ashby, A.; Rodger, H.D.; Dagleish, M.P. Complex Gill Disease: An Emerging Syndrome in Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). J. Comp. Pathol. 2018, 163, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Boerlage, A.S.; Ashby, A.; Herrero, A.; Reeves, A.; Gunn, G.J.; Rodger, H.D. Epidemiology of Marine Gill Diseases in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) Aquaculture: A Review. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 2140–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Padrós, F.; Constenla, M. Diseases Caused by Amoebae in Fish: An Overview. Animals 2021, 11, 991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Tavares-Dias, M.; Martins, M.L. An Overall Estimation of Losses Caused by Diseases in the Brazilian Fish Farms. J. Parasit. Dis. 2017, 41, 913–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Shinn, A.; Pratoomyot, J.; Bron, J.; Paladini, G.; Brooker, E.; Brooker, A. Economic Impacts of Aquatic Parasites on Global Finfish Production. Glob. Aquac. Advocate 2015, 2015, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
  8. Slinger, J.; Adams, M.B.; Wynne, J.W. Bacteriomic Profiling of Branchial Lesions Induced by Neoparamoeba Perurans Challenge Reveals Commensal Dysbiosis and an Association with Tenacibaculum Dicentrarchi in AGD-Affected Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Abdel-Tawwab, M.; Monier, M.N.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Faggio, C. Fish Response to Hypoxia Stress: Growth, Physiological, and Immunological Biomarkers. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 45, 997–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Olsvik, P.A.; Vikesa, V.; Lie, K.K.; Hevroy, E.M. Transcriptional Responses to Temperature and Low Oxygen Stress in Atlantic Salmon Studied with Next-Generation Sequencing Technology. BMC Genomics 2013, 14, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Oldham, T.; Dempster, T.; Crosbie, P.; Adams, M.; Nowak, B. Cyclic Hypoxia Exposure Accelerates the Progression of Amoebic Gill Disease. Pathogens 2020, 9, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Oldham, T.; Rodger, H.; Nowak, B.F. Incidence and Distribution of Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD)—An Epidemiological Review. Aquaculture 2016, 457, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Clark, A.; Nowak, B.F. Field Investigations of Amoebic Gill Disease in Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L., in Tasmania. J. Fish Dis. 1999, 22, 433–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Benedicenti, O.; Pottinger, T.G.; Collins, C.; Secombes, C.J. Effects of Temperature on Amoebic Gill Disease Development: Does It Play a Role? J. Fish Dis. 2019, 42, 1241–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Taylor, R.; Huynh, C.; Cameron, D.; Evans, B.; Cook, M.; Ritchie, G. Gill Score Guide-Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD) Management Training Document; Tassal Operations Pty: Hobart, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bass, D.; Stentiford, G.D.; Wang, H.-C.; Koskella, B.; Tyler, C.R. The Pathobiome in Animal and Plant Diseases. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 996–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Engelhard, G.H.; Howes, E.L.; Pinnegar, J.K.; Le Quesne, W.J.F. Assessing the Risk of Climate Change to Aquaculture: A National-Scale Case Study for the Sultanate of Oman. Clim. Risk Manag. 2022, 35, 100416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Henriquez, F.L.; Mooney, R.; Bandel, T.; Giammarini, E.; Zeroual, M.; Fiori, P.L.; Margarita, V.; Rappelli, P.; Dessì, D. Paradigms of Protist/Bacteria Symbioses Affecting Human Health: Acanthamoeba Species and Trichomonas Vaginalis. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 616213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. MacPhail, D.P.C.; Koppenstein, R.; Maciver, S.K.; Paley, R.; Longshaw, M.; Henriquez, F.L. Vibrio Species Are Predominantly Intracellular within Cultures of Neoparamoeba Perurans, Causative Agent of Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD). Aquaculture 2021, 532, 736083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Downes, J.K.; Yatabe, T.; Marcos-Lopez, M.; Rodger, H.D.; MacCarthy, E.; O’Connor, I.; Collins, E.; Ruane, N.M. Investigation of Co-Infections with Pathogens Associated with Gill Disease in Atlantic Salmon during an Amoebic Gill Disease Outbreak. J. Fish Dis. 2018, 41, 1217–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Tubbs, L.; Wybourne, B.A.; Lumsden, J.S. Nodular Gill Disease Causing Proliferative Branchitis and Mortality in Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha). N. Z. Vet. J. 2010, 58, 59–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Munday, B.L.; Foster, C.K.; Roubal, F.R.; Lester, R.J.G. Paramoebic gill infection and associated pathology of atlantic salmon, salmo salar, and rainbow trout, salmo gairdneri, in tasmania. In Pathology in Marine Science; Perkins, F.O., Cheng, T.C., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1990; pp. 215–222. ISBN 978-0-12-550755-4. [Google Scholar]
  23. Steinum, T.; Kvellestad, A.; Rønneberg, L.B.; Nilsen, H.; Asheim, A.; Fjell, K.; Nygård, S.M.R.; Olsen, A.B.; Dale, O.B. First Cases of Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD) in Norwegian Seawater Farmed Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L., and Phylogeny of the Causative Amoeba Using 18S CDNA Sequences. J. Fish Dis. 2008, 31, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Dyková, I.; Figueras, A.; Novoa, B. Amoebic Gill Infection of Turbot, Scophthalmus Maximus. Folia Parasitol. 1995, 42, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dyková, I.; Kostka, M.; Wortberg, F.; Nardy, E.; Pecková, H. New Data on Aetiology of Nodular Gill Disease in Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus Mykiss. Folia Parasitol. 2013, 57, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Leiro, J.; Paniagua, E.; Ortega, M.; Parama, A.; Fernández, J.; Sanmartín, M.L. An Amoeba Associated with Gill Disease in Turbot, Scophthalmus Maximus (L.). J. Fish Dis. 1998, 21, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Munday, B.; Zilberg, D.; Findlay, V. Gill Disease of Marine Fish Caused by Infection with Neoparamoeba Pemaquidensis. J. Fish Dis. 2001, 24, 497–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Perolo, A.; Gustinelli, A.; Fioravanti, M.L.; Manfrin, A.; Pozza, M.D.; Lunelli, F.; Accini, A.; Quaglio, F. Occurrence of nodular gill disease in farmed brown trout (Salmo trutta L.). J. Fish Dis. 2019, 42, 1315–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Good, C.M.; Thorburn, M.A.; Stevenson, R.M.W. Factors Associated with the Incidence of Bacterial Gill Disease in Salmonid Lots Reared in Ontario, Canada Government Hatcheries. Prev. Vet. Med. 2008, 83, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Rodger, H.D.; McArdle, J.F. An Outbreak of Amoebic Gill Disease in Ireland. Vet. Rec. 1996, 139, 348–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Young, N.D.; Crosbie, P.B.B.; Adams, M.B.; Nowak, B.F.; Morrison, R.N. Neoparamoeba Perurans n. Sp., an Agent of Amoebic Gill Disease of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar). Int. J. Parasitol. 2007, 37, 1469–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Kent, M.; Sawyer, T.; Hedrick, R. Paramoeba Pemaquidensis (Sarcomastigophora: Paramoebidae) Infestation of the Gills of Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus Kisutch Reared in Sea Water. Dis. Aquat. Org. 1988, 5, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Benedicenti, O.; Secombes, C.J.; Collins, C. Effects of Temperature on Paramoeba Perurans Growth in Culture and the Associated Microbial Community. Parasitology 2018, 146, 533–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. European Commision Consequences of Climate Change. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/climate-change/consequences-climate-change_en (accessed on 30 August 2022).
  35. Callaway, R.; Shinn, A.P.; Grenfell, S.E.; Bron, J.E.; Burnell, G.; Cook, E.J.; Crumlish, M.; Culloty, S.; Davidson, K.; Ellis, R.P.; et al. Review of Climate Change Impacts on Marine Aquaculture in the UK and Ireland. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2012, 22, 389–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Thompson, L.G.; Kuo, G. Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options. World Futur. Rev. 2012, 4, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Douglas-Helders, G.; Carson, J.; Nowak, B. Survival of Paramoeba Pemaquidensis on Dead Salmon: Implications for Management of Cage Hygiene. Invasive Species Compend. 2000, 20, 167–169. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bloecher, N.; Powell, M.; Hytterod, S.; Gjessing, M.; Wiik-Nielsen, J.; Mohammad, S.N.; Johansen, J.; Hansen, H.; Floerl, O.; Gjevre, A.-G. Effects of Cnidarian Biofouling on Salmon Gill Health and Development of Amoebic Gill Disease. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Rodger, H.D.; Murphy, K.; Mitchell, S.O.; Henry, L. Gill Disease in Marine Farmed Atlantic Salmon at Four Farms in Ireland. Vet. Rec. 2011, 168, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Smith, A.J.; Adams, M.B.; Crosbie, P.B.B.; Nowak, B.F.; Bridle, A.R. Size-Dependent Resistance to Amoebic Gill Disease in Naive Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2022, 122, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Kube, P.D.; Taylor, R.S.; Elliott, N.G. Genetic Variation in Parasite Resistance of Atlantic Salmon to Amoebic Gill Disease over Multiple Infections. Aquaculture 2012, 364, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Taylor, R.S.; Kube, P.D.; Muller, W.J.; Elliott, N.G. Genetic Variation of Gross Gill Pathology and Survival of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) during Natural Amoebic Gill Disease Challenge. Aquaculture 2009, 294, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Marcos-Lopez, M.; Rodger, H.D. Amoebic Gill Disease and Host Response in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.): A Review. Parasite Immunol. 2020, 42, e12766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Van Vliet, D.; Loch, T.P.; Faisal, M. Flavobacterium Psychrophilum Infections in Salmonid Broodstock and Hatchery-Propagated Stocks of the Great Lakes Basin. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2015, 27, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Adamek, M.; Teitge, F.; Jung-Schroers, V.; Heling, M.; Gela, D.; Piackova, V.; Kocour, M.; Steinhagen, D. Flavobacteria as Secondary Pathogens in Carp Suffering from Koi Sleepy Disease. J. Fish Dis. 2018, 41, 1631–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. Kumar, K.; Prasad, K.P.; Tripathi, G.; Raman, R.P.; Kumar, S.; Tembhurne, M.; Purushothaman, C.S. Isolation, identification, and pathogenicity of a virulent Aeromonas jandaei associated with mortality of farmed Pangasianodon hypothalmus, in India. Isr. J. Aquac. 2014, 67, 20727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Laith, A.R.; Najiah, M. Aeromonas hydrophila: Antimicrobial susceptibility and histopathology of isolates from diseased catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell). J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2014, 5, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Crosbie, P.B.B.; Bridle, A.R.; Cadoret, K.; Nowak, B.F. In Vitro Cultured Neoparamoeba Perurans Causes Amoebic Gill Disease in Atlantic Salmon and Fulfils Koch’s Postulates. Int. J. Parasitol. 2012, 42, 511–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Dahle, O.M.V.; Blindheim, S.H.; Nylund, A.; Karlsbakk, E.; Breck, O.; Glosvik, H.; Andersen, L. Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar and Ballan Wrasse Labrus Bergylta Display Different Susceptibility to Clonal Strains of Paramoeba Perurans. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2020, 140, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Freeman, M.A.; Sommerville, C. Desmozoon lepeophtherii n. gen., n. sp., (Microsporidia: Enterocytozoonidae) infecting the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Copepoda: Caligidae). Parasites Vectors 2009, 58, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Gunnarsson, G.S.; Blindheim, S.; Karlsbakk, E.; Plarre, H.; Imsland, A.K.; Handeland, S.; Sveier, H.; Nylund, A. Desmozoon Lepeophtherii (Microsporidian) Infections and Pancreas Disease (PD) Outbreaks in Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture 2017, 468, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Isaksen, T.; Karlsbakk, E.; Sundnes, G.; Nylund, A. Patterns of Ichthyobodo Necator Sensu Stricto Infections on Hatchery-Reared Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar in Norway. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2010, 88, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Robertson, D.A. Host-Parasite Interactions between Ichtyobodo Necator (Henneguy, 1883) and Farmed Salmonids. J. Fish Dis. 1979, 2, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Gjessing, M.C.; Spilsberg, B.; Steinum, T.M.; Amundsen, M.; Austbø, L.; Hansen, H.; Colquhoun, D.; Olsen, A.B. Multi-Agent in Situ Hybridization Confirms Ca. Branchiomonas Cysticola as a Major Contributor in Complex Gill Disease in Atlantic Salmon. Fish Shellfish Immunol. Rep. 2021, 2, 100026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Kvellestad, A.; Falk, K.; Nygaard, S.; Flesjå, K.; Holm, J. Atlantic Salmon Paramyxovirus (ASPV) Infection Contributes to Proliferative Gill Inflammation (PGI) in Seawater-Reared Salmo Salar. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2005, 67, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  56. Ellis, A.E.; Wootten, R. Costiasis of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. smolts in seawater. J. Fish Dis. 1978, 4, 389–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Blandford, M.; Taylor-Brown, A.; Nowak, B.F.; Polkinghorne, A. Epitheliocystis in Fish: An Emerging Aquaculture Disease with a Global Impact. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 1436–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  58. Nylund, S.; Andersen, L.; Sævareid, I.; Plarre, H.; Watanabe, K.; Arnesen, C.; Karlsbakk, E.; Nylund, A. Diseases of Farmed Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Associated with Infections by the Microsporidian Paranucleospora Theridion. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2011, 94, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Gjessing, M.C.; Christensen, D.H.; Manji, F.; Mohammad, S.; Petersen, P.E.; Saure, B.; Skjengen, C.; Weli, S.C.; Dale, O.B. Salmon Gill Poxvirus Disease in Atlantic Salmon Fry as Recognized by Improved Immunohistochemistry Also Demonstrates Infected Cells in Non-Respiratory Epithelial Cells. J. Fish Dis. 2018, 41, 1103–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Mitchell, S.O.; Rodger, H.D. A Review of Infectious Gill Disease in Marine Salmonid Fish. J. Fish Dis. 2011, 34, 411–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Garseth, Å.H.; Gjessing, M.C.; Moldal, T.; Gjevre, A.G. A Survey of Salmon Gill Poxvirus (SGPV) in Wild Salmonids in Norway. J. Fish Dis. 2018, 41, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Avendaño-Herrera, R.; Toranzo, A.E.; Magariños, B. Tenacibaculosis Infection in Marine Fish Caused by Tenacibaculum Maritimum: A Review. Dis. Aquat. Organ 2006, 71, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Toenshoff, E.R.; Kvellestad, A.; Mitchell, S.O.; Steinum, T.; Falk, K.; Colquhoun, D.J.; Horn, M. A Novel Betaproteobacterial Agent of Gill Epitheliocystis in Seawater Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar). PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Nylund, S.; Steigen, A.; Karlsbakk, E.; Plarre, H.; Andersen, L.; Karlsen, M.; Watanabe, K.; Nylund, A. Characterization of ‘Candidatus Syngnamydia Salmonis’ (Chlamydiales, Simkaniaceae), a Bacterium Associated with Epitheliocystis in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). Arch. Microbiol. 2015, 197, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  65. Steinum, T.; Sjåstad, K.; Falk, K.; Kvellestad, A.; Colquhoun, D. An RT PCR-DGGE Survey of Gill-Associated Bacteria in Norwegian Seawater-Reared Atlantic Salmon Suffering Proliferative Gill Inflammation. Aquaculture 2009, 293, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Nylund, A.; Watanabe, K.; Nylund, S.; Karlsen, M.; Sæther, P.A.; Arnesen, C.E.; Karlsbakk, E. Morphogenesis of Salmonid Gill Poxvirus Associated with Proliferative Gill Disease in Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) in Norway. Arch. Virol. 2008, 153, 1299–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  67. Gjessing, M.C.; Yutin, N.; Tengs, T.; Senkevich, T.; Koonin, E.; Rønning, H.P.; Alarcon, M.; Ylving, S.; Lie, K.-I.; Saure, B.; et al. Salmon Gill Poxvirus, the Deepest Representative of the Chordopoxvirinae. J. Virol. 2015, 89, 9348–9367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Nowak, B.F.; LaPatra, S.E. Epitheliocystis in Fish. J. Fish Dis. 2006, 29, 573–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Gourzioti, E.; Kolygas, M.; Athanassopoulou, F.; Babili, V. Tenacibaculosis in Aquaculture Farmed Marine Fish. J. Hell. Vet. Med. Soc. 2018, 67, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Adams, M.B.; Nowak, B.F. Amoebic Gill Disease: Sequential Pathology in Cultured Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L. J. Fish Dis. 2003, 26, 601–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Bowser, P.R.; Conroy, J.D. Histopathology of Gill Lesions in Channel Catfish Associated with Henneguya. J. Wildl. Dis. 1985, 21, 177–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Weli, S.C.; Dale, O.B.; Hansen, H.; Gjessing, M.C.; Rønneberg, L.B.; Falk, K. A Case Study of Desmozoon Lepeophtherii Infection in Farmed Atlantic Salmon Associated with Gill Disease, Peritonitis, Intestinal Infection, Stunted Growth, and Increased Mortality. Parasites Vectors 2017, 10, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Bridle, A.R.; Davenport, D.L.; Crosbie, P.B.B.; Polinski, M.; Nowak, B.F. Neoparamoeba Perurans Loses Virulence during Clonal Culture. Int. J. Parasitol. 2015, 45, 575–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Nowak, B.; Aquafin Cooperative Research Centre (Australia); Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (Australia); Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (Eds.) Host-Pathogen Interactions in Amoebic Gill Disease; FRDC Project; University of Tasmania: Launceston, Australia, 2004; ISBN 978-1-86295-222-5. [Google Scholar]
  75. Gjessing, M.C.; Steinum, T.; Olsen, A.B.; Lie, K.I.; Tavornpanich, S.; Colquhoun, D.J.; Gjevre, A.-G. Histopathological Investigation of Complex Gill Disease in Sea Farmed Atlantic Salmon. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0222926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  76. Lima, P.C.; Hartley-Tassell, L.; Wynne, J.W. The Ability of Neoparamoeba Perurans to Bind to and Digest Non-Fish-Derived Mucin: Insights into the Amoeba’s Mechanism of Action to Overcome Gill Mucus Production. J. Fish Dis. 2021, 44, 1355–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Dyková, I.; Nowak, B.F.; Crosbie, P.B.B.; Fiala, I.; Pecková, H.; Adams, M.B.; Macháčková, B.; Dvořáková, H. Neoparamoeba Branchiphila n. Sp., and Related Species of the Genus Neoparamoeba Page, 1987: Morphological and Molecular Characterization of Selected Strains. J. Fish Dis. 2005, 28, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  78. Nowak, B.F.; Archibald, J.M. Opportunistic but Lethal: The Mystery of Paramoebae. Trends Parasitol. 2018, 34, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  79. 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] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  80. Bowman, J.P.; Nowak, B. Salmonid Gill Bacteria and Their Relationship to Amoebic Gill Disease. J. Fish Dis. 2004, 27, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  81. Embar-Gopinath, S.; Crosbie, P.; Nowak, B. Concentration Effects of Winogradskyella Sp. on the Incidence and Severity of Amoebic Gill Disease. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2006, 73, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Embar-Gopinath, S.; Butler, R.; Nowak, B. Influence of Salmonid Gill Bacteria on Development and Severity of Amoebic Gill Disease. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2005, 67, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Qiao, Y.; Wang, J.; Mao, Y.; Liu, M.; Chen, R.; Su, Y.; Ke, Q.; Han, K.; Zheng, W. Pathogenic Bacterium Vibrio Harveyi: An Endosymbiont in the Marine Parasitic Ciliate Protozoan Cryptocaryon Irritans. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2017, 36, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Robino, E.; Poirier, A.C.; Amraoui, H.; Le Bissonnais, S.; Perret, A.; Lopez-Joven, C.; Auguet, J.-C.; Rubio, T.P.; Cazevieille, C.; Rolland, J.-L.; et al. Resistance of the Oyster Pathogen Vibrio Tasmaniensis LGP32 against Grazing by Vannella Sp. Marine Amoeba Involves Vsm and CopA Virulence Factors. Env. Microbiol. 2020, 22, 4183–4197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  85. Dyková, I.; Fiala, I.; Pecková, H. Neoparamoeba Spp. and Their Eukaryotic Endosymbionts Similar to Perkinsela Amoebae (Hollande, 1980): Coevolution Demonstrated by SSU RRNA Gene Phylogenies. Eur. J. Protistol. 2008, 44, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  86. Dyková, I.; Fiala, I.; Lom, J.; Lukeš, J. Perkinsiella Amoebae-like Endosymbionts of Neoparamoeba Spp., Relatives of the Kinetoplastid Ichthyobodo. Eur. J. Protistol. 2003, 39, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Moreira, D.; López-García, P.; Vickerman, K. An Updated View of Kinetoplastid Phylogeny Using Environmental Sequences and a Closer Outgroup: Proposal for a New Classification of the Class Kinetoplastea. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2004, 54, 1861–1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  88. Tanifuji, G.; Cenci, U.; Moog, D.; Dean, S.; Nakayama, T.; David, V.; Fiala, I.; Curtis, B.A.; Sibbald, S.J.; Onodera, N.T.; et al. Genome Sequencing Reveals Metabolic and Cellular Interdependence in an Amoeba-Kinetoplastid Symbiosis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 11688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  89. Østevik, L.; Stormoen, M.; Hellberg, H.; Kraugerud, M.; Manji, F.; Lie, K.-I.; Nødtvedt, A.; Rodger, H.; Alarcón, M. A Cohort Study of Gill Infections, Gill Pathology and Gill-Related Mortality in Sea-Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.): A Descriptive Analysis. J. Fish Dis. 2022, 45, 1301–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Dyková, I.; Figueras, A.; Novoa, B.; Casal, J.F. Paramoeba Sp., an Agent of Amoebic Gill Disease of Turbot Scophthalmus Maximus. Dis. Aquat. Org. 1998, 33, 137–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  91. Morrison, R.N.; Crosbie, P.B.B.; Cook, M.T.; Adams, M.B.; Nowak, B.F. Cultured Gill-Derived Neoparamoebapemaquidensis Fails to Elicit Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD) in Atlantic Salmon Salmo Salar. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2005, 66, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  92. Nylund, A.; Røed, M.; Blindheim, S.; Trösse, C.; Andersen, L. Experimental Challenge of Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Using Clones of Paramoeba Perurans, P. Pemaquidensis and Tetramitus sp. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2021, 145, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  93. Crosbie, P.B.B.; Nowak, B.F.; Carson, J. Isolation of Neoparamoeba Pemaquidensis Page, 1987 from Marine and Estuarine Sediments in Tasmania. Bull.-Eur. Assoc. Fish Pathol. 2003, 23, 241–244. [Google Scholar]
  94. Howard, T.S. Paramoebiasis of Sea-Farmed Salmonids in Tasmania: A Study of Its Aetiology, Pathogenicity, and Control. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  95. Wong, F.; Carson, J.; Elliott, N. 18S Ribosomal DNA-Based PCR Identification of Neoparamoeba Pemaquidensis, the Agent of Amoebic Gill Disease in Sea-Farmed Salmonids. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2004, 60, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  96. Bermingham, M.; Mulcahy, M. Neoparamoeba Sp. and Other Protozoans on the Gills of Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Smolts in Seawater. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2007, 76, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  97. Dyková, I.; Lorenzo-Morales, J.; Kostka, M.; Valladares, B.; Peckova, H. Neoparamoeba Branchiphila Infections in Moribund Sea Urchins Diadema Aff. Antillarum in Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2011, 95, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  98. English, C.; Tyml, T.; Botwright, N.; Barnes, A.; Wynne, J.; Lima, P.; Cook, M. A Diversity of Amoebae Colonise the Gills of Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) with Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD). Eur. J. Protistol. 2019, 67, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  99. Dyková, I.; Figueras, A.; Novoa, B. Epizoic Amoebae from the Gills of Turbot Scophthalmus Maximus. Dis. Aquat. Org. 1999, 38, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  100. Sawyer, T.K.; Ghittino, P.; Andruetto, S.; Pernin, P.; Pussard, M. Vexillifera Bacillipedes Page, 1969, an Amphizoic Amoeba of Hatchery Rainbow Trout in Italy. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 1978, 97, 596–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  101. Dykova, I.; Kostka, M.; Peckova, H. Three New Species of Amoebozoan Genus Vexillifera Schaeffer, 1926. Protozoologica 2011, 50, 57–65. [Google Scholar]
  102. Dyková, I.; Novoa, B. Comments on Diagnosis of Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD) in Turbot, Scophthalmus Maximus. Bull. Eur. Ass. Fish Pathol. 2001, 21, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
  103. English, C.J.; Botwright, N.A.; Adams, M.B.; Barnes, A.C.; Wynne, J.W.; Lima, P.C.; Cook, M.T. Immersion Challenge of Naive Atlantic Salmon with Cultured Nolandella Sp. and Pseudoparamoeba Sp. Did Not Increase the Severity of Neoparamoeba Perurans -Induced Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD). J. Fish Dis. 2020, 44, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  104. Udalov, I.A.; Lee, W.J.; Lotonin, K.; Smirnov, A. Pseudoparamoeba Garorimi n. Sp., with Notes on Species Distinctions within the Genus. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2020, 67, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  105. Martinez, A.J. Free-Living Amebas: Natural History, Prevention, Diagnosis, Pathology, and Treatment of Disease; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1985; ISBN 978-1-351-08904-3. [Google Scholar]
  106. Mrva, M. Infection of Mayorella Penardi (Gymnamoebia) in Oak-Hornbeam Forest Soil by the Ectoparasitic Fungus Amoebophilus Simplex (Zygomycota). Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2008, 44, 80–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  107. Mrva, M. Mayorella Vespertilioides Page, 1983 (Amoebozoa)—New Host for the Ectoparasitic Fungus Amoebophilus Simplex (Zygomycota). Biologia 2011, 66, 645–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  108. Griffin, J.L. Temperature Tolerance of Pathogenic and Nonpathogenic Free-Living Amoebas. Science 1972, 178, 869–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  109. Wiik-Nielsen, J.; Gjessing, M.; Solheim, H.T.; Litlabø, A.; Gjevre, A.-G.; Kristoffersen, A.B.; Powell, M.D.; Colquhoun, D.J.C. Branchiomonas Cysticola, Ca. Piscichlamydia Salmonis and Salmon Gill Pox Virus Transmit Horizontally in Atlantic Salmon Held in Fresh Water. J. Fish Dis. 2017, 40, 1387–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  110. Mitchell, S.O.; Steinum, T.M.; Toenshoff, E.R.; Kvellestad, A.; Falk, K.; Horn, M.; Colquhoun, D.J. “Candidatus Branchiomonas Cysticola” Is a Common Agent of Epitheliocysts in Seawater-Farmed Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar in Norway and Ireland. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2013, 103, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  111. Mitchell, S.; Steinum, T.; Rodger, H.; Holland, C.; Falk, K.; Colquhoun, D. Epitheliocystis in Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L., Farmed in Fresh Water in Ireland Is Associated with ‘Candidatus Clavochlamydia Salmonicola’ Infection. J. Fish Dis. 2010, 33, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  112. Steinum, T.; Kvellestad, A.; Colquhoun, D.J.; Heum, M.; Mohammad, S.; Grøntvedt, R.N.; Falk, K. Microbial and Pathological Findings in Farmed Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar with Proliferative Gill Inflammation. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2010, 91, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  113. Fringuelli, E.; Savage, P.D.; Gordon, A.; Baxter, E.J.; Rodger, H.D.; Graham, D.A. Development of a Quantitative Real-Time PCR for the Detection of Tenacibaculum Maritimum and Its Application to Field Samples. J. Fish Dis. 2012, 35, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  114. Ferguson, H.W.; Delannoy, C.M.J.; Hay, S.; Nicolson, J.; Sutherland, D.; Crumlish, M. Jellyfish as Vectors of Bacterial Disease for Farmed Salmon (Salmo Salar). J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2010, 22, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  115. Kim, W.-S.; Kong, K.-H.; Kim, J.-O.; Jung, S.-J.; Kim, J.-H.; Oh, M.-J. Amoebic Gill Disease Outbreak in Marine Fish Cultured in Korea. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2017, 29, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  116. Grimes, D.J. The Vibrios: Scavengers, Symbionts, and Pathogens from the Sea. Microb. Ecol. 2020, 80, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  117. Frans, I.; Michiels, C.W.; Bossier, P.; Willems, K.A.; Lievens, B.; Rediers, H. Vibrio Anguillarum as a Fish Pathogen: Virulence Factors, Diagnosis and Prevention. J. Fish Dis. 2011, 34, 643–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  118. Rodrigues, S.; Paillard, C.; Le Pennec, G.; Dufour, A.; Bazire, A. Vibrio Tapetis, the Causative Agent of Brown Ring Disease, Forms Biofilms with Spherical Components. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  119. Kim, S.-R.; Park, M.-A.; Kitamura, S.-I.; Jung, S.-J.; Oh, M.-J. Recovery of Pseudomonas Anguilliseptica from Diseased Striped Beakperch (Oplegnathus Fasciatus) in Korea. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2010, 13, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  120. Embar-Gopinath, S.; Bowman, J.; Carson, J.; Crosbie, P.; Nowak, B. A Culture-Dependent 16S RRNA Gene-Based Approach to Identify Gill Bacteria Associated with Amoebic Gill Disease in Atlantic Salmon. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Fish Pathol. 2008, 28, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  121. Verhoef, J.; Fleer, A. Staphylococcus Epidermidis Endocarditis and Staphylococcus Epidermidis Infection in an Intensive Care Unit. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. Suppl. 1983, 41, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  122. Reeves, M.W.; Pine, L.; Feeley, J.C.; Wells, D.E. Presence of Toxic Shock Toxin in Toxic Shock and Other Clinical Strains of Staphylococcus Aureus. Infect. Immun. 1984, 46, 590–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  123. Kusuda, R.; Sugiyama, A. Studies on the Characters of Staphylococcus Epidermidis Isolated from Diseased Fishes—I. On the Morphological, Biological and Biochemical Properties. Fish Pathol. 1981, 16, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Huang, S.; Chen, W.; Shei, M.; Liao, I.-C.; Chen, S.; Huang, S.; Chen, W.; Shei, M.; Liao, I.-C. Studies on Epizootiology and Pathogenicity of Staphylococcus Epidermidis in Tilapia (Oreochromis Spp.) Cultured in Taiwan. Zool. Stud. 1998, 38, 178–188. [Google Scholar]
  125. Oh, W.T.; Jun, J.W.; Giri, S.S.; Yun, S.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, S.G.; Kim, S.W.; Han, S.J.; Kwon, J.; Park, S.C. Staphylococcus Xylosus Infection in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) As a Primary Pathogenic Cause of Eye Protrusion and Mortality. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  126. Padilla, D.; Acosta Arbelo, F.; Rodríguez Guisado, F.; Gomez, V.; Déniz, S.; Real Valcárcel, F. Mortality Caused by Staphylococcus Xylosus in Red Porgy (Pagrus Pagrus) Fish. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2001, 19, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  127. Kumar, V.; Zozaya-Valdes, E.; Kjelleberg, S.; Thomas, T.; Egan, S. Multiple Opportunistic Pathogens Can Cause a Bleaching Disease in the Red Seaweed Delisea Pulchra. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 18, 3962–3975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  128. Yamane, K.; Asato, J.; Kawade, N.; Takahashi, H.; Kimura, B.; Arakawa, Y. Two Cases of Fatal Necrotizing Fasciitis Caused by Photobacterium Damsela in Japan. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 1370–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  129. Labella, A.m.; Rosado, J.J.; Balado, M.; Lemos, M.L.; Borrego, J.J. Virulence Properties of Three New Photobacterium Species Affecting Cultured Fish. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 129, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  130. Rajan, P.R.; Lin, J.H.-Y.; Ho, M.-S.; Yang, H.-L. Simple and Rapid Detection of Photobacterium Damselae Ssp. Piscicida by a PCR Technique and Plating Method. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 95, 1375–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  131. Zorrilla, I.; Balebona, M.C.; Mori·igo, M.A.; Sarasquete, C.; Borrego, J.J. Isolation and Characterization of the Causative Agent of Pasteurellosis, Photobacterium Damsela Ssp. Piscicida, from Sole, Solea Senegalensis (Kaup). J. Fish Dis. 1999, 22, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  132. Rivas, A.J.; Lemos, M.L.; Osorio, C.R. Photobacterium Damselae Subsp. Damselae, a Bacterium Pathogenic for Marine Animals and Humans. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  133. Chen, C.; Hu, C.; Chen, X.; Zhang, L. Identification and characterization of Shewanella algae as a novel pathogen of ulcer disease of fish Scinenops ocellat. Oceanol. Limnol. Sin. 2003, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  134. Domínguez, H.; Vogel, B.F.; Gram, L.; Hoffmann, S.; Schaebel, S. Shewanella Alga Bacteremia in Two Patients with Lower Leg Ulcers. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1996, 22, 1036–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  135. Kozińska, A.; Pekala-Safinska, A. First Isolation of Shewanella Putrefaciens from Freshwater Fish-A Potential New Pathogen of Fish. Bull.-Eur. Assoc. Fish Pathol. 2004, 24, 189–193. [Google Scholar]
  136. Jørgensen, B.R.; Huss, H.H. Growth and Activity of Shewanella Putrefaciens Isolated from Spoiling Fish. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1989, 9, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  137. Urbanczyk, H.; Ast, J.C.; Higgins, M.J.; Carson, J.; Dunlap, P.V. Reclassification of Vibrio Fischeri, Vibrio Logei, Vibrio Salmonicida and Vibrio Wodanis as Aliivibrio Fischeri Gen. Nov., Comb. Nov., Aliivibrio Logei Comb. Nov., Aliivibrio Salmonicida Comb. Nov. and Aliivibrio Wodanis Comb. Nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 2823–2829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  138. Nørstebø, S.F.; Lotherington, L.; Landsverk, M.; Bjelland, A.M.; Sørum, H. Aliivibrio Salmonicida Requires O-Antigen for Virulence in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). Microb. Pathog. 2018, 124, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  139. Benediktsdóttir, E.; Verdonck, L.; Spröer, C.; Helgason, S.; Swings, J. Characterization of Vibrio Viscosus and Vibrio Wodanis Isolated at Different Geographical Locations: A Proposal for Reclassification of Vibrio Viscosus as Moritella Viscosa Comb. Nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2000, 50, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  140. Karlsen, C.; Vanberg, C.; Mikkelsen, H.; Sørum, H. Co-Infection of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar), by Moritella Viscosa and Aliivibrio Wodanis, Development of Disease and Host Colonization. Vet. Microbiol. 2014, 171, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  141. Nylund, A.; Watanabe, K.; Nylund, S.; Arnesen, C.E.; Karlsbakk, E. Lakselus. Biologisk Vektor for Lakseparasitt | Naturen. Naturen 2009, 133, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  142. Nylund, S.; Nylund, A.; Watanabe, K.; Arnesen, C.E.; Karlsbakk, E. Paranucleospora Theridion n. Gen., n. Sp. (Microsporidia, Enterocytozoonidae) with a Life Cycle in the Salmon Louse (Lepeophtheirus Salmonis, Copepoda) and Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2010, 57, 95–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  143. Matthews, C.G.G.; Richards, R.H.; Shinn, A.P.; Cox, D.I. Gill Pathology in Scottish Farmed Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L., Associated with the Microsporidian Desmozoon Lepeophtherii Freeman et Sommerville, 2009. J. Fish Dis. 2013, 36, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  144. Yemmen, C.; Ktari, M.; Bahri, S. Seasonality and Histopathology of Trichodina Puytoraci Lom, 1962 Parasite of Flathead Mullet (Mugil Cephalus) from Tunisia. Acta Adriat. 2011, 52, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  145. Cordeiro Bentes, S.P.; Gomes da Cruz, M.; Jerônimo, G.T.; Coimbra, F.C.; Gonçalves, L.U. Chloramine-T Application for Trichodina Sp. in Arapaima Gigas Juveniles: Acute Toxicity, Histopathology, Efficacy, and Physiological Effects. Vet. Parasitol. 2022, 303, 109667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  146. Martins, M.; Marchiori, N.; Nunes, G.; Rodrigues, M. First Record of Trichodina Heterodentata (Ciliophora: Trichodinidae) from Channel Catfish, Ictalurus Punctatus Cultivated in Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. Rev. Brasleira Biol. 2010, 70, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  147. Martins, M.L.; Marchiori, N.; Roumbedakis, K.; Lami, F. Trichodina nobilis Chen, 1963 and Trichodina reticulata Hirschmann et Partsch, 1955 from ornamental freshwater fishes in Brazil. Ecol. Braz. J. Biol 2012, 72, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  148. De Pádua, S.B.; Martins, M.L.; Carraschi, S.P.; Da Cruz, C.; Ishikawa, M.M. Trichodina Heterodentata (Ciliophora: Trichodinidae): A New Parasite for Piaractus Mesopotamicus (Pisces: Characidae). Zootaxa 2012, 3422, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  149. Öztürk, T.; Güven, A. Trichodinid Parasites (Protozoa: Ciliophora: Peritrichida) of Invasive Gobiid Fish Inhabiting The Lower Kızılırmak Delta in Samsun, Turkey. Pak. J. Zool. 2013, 45, 1517–1524. [Google Scholar]
  150. Gjessing, M.C.; Thoen, E.; Tengs, T.; Skotheim, S.A.; Dale, O.B. Salmon Gill Poxvirus, a Recently Characterized Infectious Agent of Multifactorial Gill Disease in Freshwater- and Seawater-Reared Atlantic Salmon. J. Fish Dis. 2017, 40, 1253–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  151. Kvellestad, A.; Dannevig, B.H.; Falk, K. Isolation and Partial Characterization of a Novel Paramyxovirus from the Gills of Diseased Seawater-Reared Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L). J. Gen. Virol. 2003, 84, 2179–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  152. Meyers, T.R.; Batts, W.N. Chapter 17-Paramyxoviruses of Fish. In Aquaculture Virology; Kibenge, F.S.B., Godoy, M.G., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2016; pp. 259–265. ISBN 978-0-12-801573-5. [Google Scholar]
  153. Baxter, E.J.; Rodger, H.D.; McAllen, R.; Doyle, T.K. Gill Disorders in Marine-Farmed Salmon: Investigating the Role of Hydrozoan Jellyfish. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 2011, 1, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  154. Baxter, E.J.; Sturt, M.M.; Ruane, N.M.; Doyle, T.K.; McAllen, R.; Harman, L.; Rodger, H.D. Gill Damage to Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) Caused by the Common Jellyfish (Aurelia Aurita) under Experimental Challenge. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e18529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  155. Doyle, T.; Haas, H.; Cotton, D.; Dorschel, B.; Cummins, V.; Houghton, J.; Davenport, J.; Hays, G. Widespread Occurrence of the Jellyfish Pelagia Noctiluca in Irish Coastal and Shelf Waters. J. Plankton Res. 2008, 30, 963–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  156. Kintner, A.; Brierley, A.S. Cryptic Hydrozoan Blooms Pose Risks to Gill Health in Farmed North Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 2019, 99, 539–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  157. Bosch-Belmar, M.; M’Rabet, C.; Dhaouadi, R.; Chalghaf, M.; Yahia, M.N.D.; Fuentes, V.; Piraino, S.; Yahia, O.K.D. Jellyfish Stings Trigger Gill Disorders and Increased Mortality in Farmed Sparus Aurata (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  158. Baxter, E.; Sturt, M.; Ruane, N.; Doyle, T.; McAllen, R.; Rodger, H. Biofouling of the Hydroid Ectopleura Larynx on Aquaculture Nets in Ireland: Implications for Finfish Health. Fish Vet. J. 2012, 13, 17–29. [Google Scholar]
  159. Stilwell, J.M.; Griffin, M.J.; Waldbieser, G.C.; Stanton, J.B.; Leary, J.H.; Khoo, L.H.; Steadman, J.M.; Ware, C.; Wise, D.J.; Camus, A.C. Myxozoan community cmyxozoan community composition and diversity in clinical cases of proliferative gill disease in mississippi catfish aquaculture. J. Parasitol. 2022, 108, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  160. Reid, G.K.; Gurney-Smith, H.J.; Marcogliese, D.J.; Knowler, D.; Benfey, T.; Garber, A.F.; Forster, I.; Chopin, T.; Brewer-Dalton, K.; Moccia, R.D.; et al. Climate Change and Aquaculture: Considering Biological Response and Resources. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 2019, 11, 569–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  161. Soto, D.; Ross, L.G.; Handisyde, N.; Bueno, P.B.; Beveridge, C.M.; Dabbadie, L.; Aguilar-Manjarrez, J.; Cai, J.; Pongthanapanich, T. Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 627; Food & Agriculture Org.: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 978-92-5-130607-9. [Google Scholar]
  162. English, C.J.; Swords, F.; Downes, J.K.; Ruane, N.M.; Botwright, N.A.; Taylor, R.S.; Barnes, A.C.; Wynne, J.W.; Lima, P.C.; Cook, M.T. Prevalence of Six Amoeba Species Colonising the Gills of Farmed Atlantic Salmon with Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD) Using QPCR. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 2019, 11, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  163. Yazdi, D.S.k.; Shakouri, D.B. The Effects of Climate Change on Aquaculture. IJESD 2010, 1, 378–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  164. Stehfest, K.M.; Carter, C.G.; McAllister, J.D.; Ross, J.D.; Semmens, J.M. Response of Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar to Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Extremes Established Using Animal-Borne Environmental Sensors. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  165. Elliott, J.M.; Elliott, J.A. Temperature Requirements of Atlantic Salmon Salmo Salar, Brown Trout Salmo Trutta and Arctic Charr Salvelinus Alpinus: Predicting the Effects of Climate Change. J. Fish Biol. 2010, 77, 1793–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  166. Bowden, A.J.; Adams, M.B.; Andrewartha, S.J.; Elliott, N.G.; Frappell, P.B.; Clark, T.D. Amoebic Gill Disease Increases Energy Requirements and Decreases Hypoxia Tolerance in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) Smolts. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2022, 265, 111128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  167. Raida, M.K.; Buchmann, K. Temperature-Dependent Expression of Immune-Relevant Genes in Rainbow Trout Following Yersinia Ruckeri Vaccination. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2007, 77, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  168. Pettersen, E.; Bjørløw, I.; Hagland, T.; Wergeland, H. Effect of Seawater Temperature on Leucocyte Populations in Atlantic Salmon Post-Smolts. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2005, 106, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  169. Jones, S.R.M.; Price, D. Elevated Seawater Temperature and Infection with Neoparamoeba Perurans Exacerbate Complex Gill Disease in Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) in British Columbia, Canada. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  170. Hudson, J.; Nowak, B.F. Experimental Challenge Models and In Vitro Models to Investigate Efficacy of Treatments and Vaccines against Amoebic Gill Disease. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  171. Fridman, S.; Tsairidou, S.; Jayasuriya, N.; Sobolewska, H.; Hamilton, A.; Lobos, C.; Houston, R.D.; Rodger, H.; Bron, J.; Herath, T. Assessment of Marine Gill Disease in Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) in Chile Using a Novel Total Gross Gill Scoring System: A Case Study. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  172. Sibbald, S.J.; Cenci, U.; Colp, M.; Eglit, Y.; O’Kelly, C.J.; Archibald, J.M. Diversity and Evolution of Paramoeba Spp. and Their Kinetoplastid Endosymbionts. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2017, 64, 598–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  173. Machado Motta, M. Kinetoplast as a Potential Chemotherapeutic Target of Trypanosomatids. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2008, 14, 847–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Pyrethroid-Resistant and Susceptible Triatoma infestans (Klug, 1834) (Hemiptera, Triatominae): Analysis of Their Vectorial Characteristics by Metacyclogenesis, Feeding/Defecation Patterns, and Parasite Load
Previous
Blastocystis sp. Infection: Prevalence and Clinical Aspects among Patients Attending to the Laboratory of Parasitology–Mycology of Fann University Hospital, Dakar, Senegal
Next