| Literature DB >> 25526740 |
Giuseppe Paladini1, Haakon Hansen2, Chris F Williams3, Nick G H Taylor4, Olga L Rubio-Mejía5, Scott J Denholm6, Sigurd Hytterød7, James E Bron8, Andrew P Shinn9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gyrodactylus salaris Malmberg, 1957 has had a devastating impact on wild Norwegian stocks of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., and it is the only Office International des Epizooties (OIE) listed parasitic pathogen of fish. The UK is presently recognised as G. salaris-free, and management plans for its containment and control are currently based on Scandinavian studies. The current study investigates the susceptibility of British salmonids to G. salaris, and determines whether, given the host isolation since the last glaciation and potential genetic differences, the populations under test would exhibit different levels of susceptibility, as illustrated by the parasite infection trajectory over time, from their Scandinavian counterparts.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25526740 PMCID: PMC4287164 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-014-0576-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Figure 1Malmberg, 1957 on two strains of Atlantic salmon L. Experimental infection of G. salaris (Fusta strain, haplotype A) on (A) S. salar (n = 30; three replicates of 10 fish each), from the River Dee in Wales, UK; and (B) the control group of S. salar (n = 10) from the River Lærdalselva, Norway. The growth on the two hosts (Welsh and Norwegian S. salar populations) is shown on the same scale for direct comparison. Grey dotted lines represent the number of parasites assessed on each individually marked fish; mean intensity of infection is shown in blue line, including standard error of the mean (SEM).
Figure 2Malmberg, 1957 on brown trout L. and grayling (L.). Experimental infection of G. salaris (Fusta strain, haplotype A) on a population of (A) S. trutta (n = 30), from the River Tyne in England, UK; and (B) T. thymallus (n = 30; three replicates of 10 fish each), from the River Nidd in England, UK. The growth on S. trutta and T. thymallus is shown on the same scale for direct comparison. Grey dotted lines represent the number of parasites assessed on each individually marked fish; mean intensity of infection is shown in blue line, including standard error of the mean (SEM).
Intensity of Malmberg, 1957 infection on L. from the River Dee, Wales and from the Laerdalselva, Norway (control group), from L. from the River Tyne, England and from (L.) from the River Nidd, England
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 87.0 ± 8.2 (28–215) | 79.6 ± 6.6 (46–108) | 59.7 ± 3.5 (32–107) | 59.8 ± 4.3 (28–146) |
| 5 | 157.4 ± 11.2 (76–314) | 183.4 ± 17.0 (114–291) | 90.1 ± 8.5 (39–280) | 93.4 ± 7.5 (37–251) |
| 12 | 343.6 ± 21.3 (151–615) | 349.1 ± 35.8 (184–544)a | 145.9 ± 13.4 (55–305) | 182.5 ± 8.4 (94–310) |
| 19 | 581.6 ± 28.6 (200–923) | 560.4 ± 35.3 (385–679) | 74.0 ± 7.2 (20–191) | 252.6 ± 11.7 (144–385) |
| 26 | 1043.5 ± 54.1 (511–1812) | 1003.1 ± 73.2 (714–1284) | 52.0 ± 5.6 (9–137) | 206.7 ± 14.8 (77–436) |
| 33 | 1741.5 ± 93.1 (810–2890) | 1459.7 ± 111.5 (1114–2165) | 37.3 ± 5.5 (4–138) | 151.1 ± 13.3 (34–293)d |
| 40 | - | - | 20.7 ± 4.4 (1–133) | 66.1 ± 7.8 (5–158) |
| 49 | - | - | 13.1 ± 2.8 (0–84) | 29.7 ± 4.9 (0–115) |
| 63 | - | - | 11.8 ± 2.4 (0–63) | 16.9 ± 2.7 (0–48) |
| 77 | - | - | 14.5 ± 3.0 (0–70)b | 8.5 ± 1.9 (0–38)e |
| 100 | - | - | 10.6 ± 1.8 (0–39)c | 2.1 ± 0.8 (0–21)f |
| 110 | - | - | 0.9 ± 0.3 (0–6) | 0.3 ± 0.2 (0–5) |
Footnotes: Fish mortalities throughout the duration of the experiment. Parasite numbers were assessed on dead individuals.
Control S. salar: athree dead fish not linked with G. salaris infection.
Salmo trutta: bfive dead fish due to power outage and temporary cessation in water flow on day 69; cfurther two dead fish due to the stress derived by the previous power outage.
Thymallus thymallus: done dead fish; efurther five dead fish due to power outage and temporary cessation in water flow on day 69; ffurther six dead fish due to the stress derived by the previous power outage.
The mean intensity ± standard error of the mean (SEM) and the range in parentheses are presented for each time point post-infection (p.i.) and host.
Figure 3Distribution of Malmberg, 1957 on the fins and body of the four salmonids. The distribution of G. salaris (Fusta strain, haplotype A) on the fins and body of a population of: (A) Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. from the River Dee, Wales, UK (n = 30); (B) the S. salar control from the River Lærdalselva, Norway (n = 10); (C) brown trout Salmo trutta L. from the River Tyne, England, UK (n = 30); and (D) grayling Thymallus thymallus (L.) from the River Nidd, England, UK (n = 30). The growth on the two S. salar populations, and on S. trutta and T. thymallus is shown on the same scale for direct comparison.
Malmberg, 1957 haplotypes used in previous experiments ascertaining the susceptibility of different strains of L. (A = Atlantic strain; B = Baltic strain)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bakke [ | A: Alta, Lone, Drammenselva and Lierelva (Norway) | R. Drammenselva | F | exponential growth | susceptible |
| B: Neva (Russia) | R. Drammenselva | F | declining after 3 weeks | responding | |
| Bakke and MacKenzie [ | A: Conon and Shin (Scotland) and Lierelva (Norway) | R. Figga | A* | exponential growth | susceptible |
| Bakke | A: Alta and Lone (Norway) | R. Drammenselva | F | exponential growth | susceptible |
| B: Neva (Russia) | R. Drammenselva | F | declining after 3 weeks | innately resistant and responding | |
| Bakke | A: Akerselva (Norway) | unknown | unknown | exponential growth | susceptible |
| Bakke | A: Alta (Norway) | R. Lierelva | F | exponential growth | susceptible |
| ♀A × ♂ | R. Lierelva | F | declining after 3 weeks | innately resistant and susceptible | |
| ♂A × ♀ | R. Lierelva | F | elimination in 2 weeks | innately resistant | |
| Bakke | A: Lierelva (Norway) | R. Rauma | A | exponential growth | susceptible |
| A: Lierelva and Batnfjordselva (Norway) | R. Batnfjordselva and Steinkjerselva | A and A* | exponential growth | susceptible | |
| A: Namsen and Alta (Norway) | R. Lierelva | F | exponential growth | susceptible | |
| A × B hybrids: Imsa (Norway) × Neva (Russia) | R. Lierelva | F | declining after 4 weeks | responding | |
| B: Neva (Russia) | R. Lierelva | F | declining after 3 weeks | responding | |
| Bakke | A: Lierelva (Norway) | R. Figga | A* | exponential growth | susceptible |
| B: Indalsälv (Sweden) | R. Figga | A* | slightly declining after 4 weeks | responding and susceptible | |
| Cable | A: Alta and Lierelva (Norway) | R. Lierelva | F | exponential growth | susceptible |
| B: Neva (Russia) | R. Lierelva | F | declining after 3 weeks | innately resistant and responding | |
| Dalgaard | A: Conon (Scotland) | R. Lærdalselva | F | exponential growth | susceptible |
| B: Lule (Sweden) | R. Lærdalselva | F | declining after 6 weeks | responding | |
| Dalgaard | A: Conon (Scotland), Skjern (Denmark) and Bristol Cove (Canada) | R. Lærdalselva | F | exponential growth | susceptible |
| B: Mörrum (Sweden) | R. Lærdalselva | F | exponential growth | susceptible | |
| Jansen | A: Imsa (Norway) | R. Lierelva | F | exponential growth | susceptible |
| ♀A × ♂B hybrids: Imsa (Norway) × Neva (Russia) | R. Lierelva | F | exponential growth | susceptible | |
| current study | A: Dee (Wales), Lærdalselva (Norway) | R. Fusta | A | exponential growth | susceptible |
Footnotes: 1Host response presented using the three categories defined by Bakke et al. [26], i.e. susceptible, responding or innately resistant.
*Haplotypes tentatively proposed based on their geographic origin and their relative proximity to defined strains [4].