Literature DB >> 29064164

The aquaculture microbiome at the centre of business creation.

Karen K Dittmann1, Bastian B Rasmussen1, Mathieu Castex2, Lone Gram1, Mikkel Bentzon-Tilia1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29064164      PMCID: PMC5658606          DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.12877

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Microb Biotechnol        ISSN: 1751-7915            Impact factor:   5.813


× No keyword cloud information.
Twelve per cent of the world's population is currently securing their livelihood partly, or fully, through the fisheries and aquaculture sector (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2016). Most people occupied in this sector rely on wild catches; however, fish n class="Species">stocks are becoming depleted with 90% of stocks being fully or overexploited (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2016). A more productive and sustainable aquaculture sector is needed to meet the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the UN number 2, 12 and 14 and supply a growing world population, which is expected to reach 1010 individuals in approximately 30 years (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2015), with high‐quality protein. The aquaculture sector has, within the past few years, surpassed wild catches in the production of seafood (fish and plants combined; Bentzon‐Tilia et al., 2016), and overall employment in the fisheries sector has decreased by approximately one million individuals from 2010 to 2014, while the aquaculture sector saw an increase of 0.1 million individuals. In general, a shift has been seen from 1990, where 83% were employed in fisheries and 17% in aquaculture, to 2014 where 67% were employed in fisheries and 33% in aquaculture (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2016). The sector is projected to increase its output from 74 million tons in 2014 to 102 million tons by 2025, and up to 121 million tons by 2030 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2016). Furthermore, it was recently suggested that the global biological production potential for marine aquaculture is more than 100 times the current global seafood consumption, thus suitable habitats do not seem to be a limiting factor in the growth of the sector (Gentry et al., 2017). Consequently, the industry is faced with a need to significantly increase productivity while at the same time securing both livelihoods and sustainability. Controlling the microorganisms that are associated with aquaculture systems (i.e. the aquaculture microbiome) has always been essential in high‐intensity rearing of fish. Disease outbreaks caused by pathogenic bacteria are believed to be one of the most serious challenges faced by the aquaculture industry (Meyer, 1991), and consequently, extensive measures are taken to limit the introduction and proliferation of such bacteria in the aquaculture systems. Furthermore, microbial activity in these naturally eutrophied systems may produce unwanted toxic metabolites such as hydrogen sulphide (n class="Chemical">H2S), which is formed when microorganisms reduce sulphate (SO4 −) in anaerobic respiration and which interferes with mammalian respiration. However, microbes may also serve as a solution to an array of these very challenges. In the agriculture industry, microbiome‐based products such as seed coatings that increase nutrient uptake in crops, and which antagonize plant pathogenic soil organisms, are becoming increasingly popular tools to improve productivity in a sustainable manner, and microbiome‐based products may reach a market size comparable to that of chemical agro‐chemicals within a few years (Singh, 2017). The very same technologies that have facilitated this development, for example advances in high‐throughput sequencing and synthetic biology, have been proposed to be key in the sustainable development of the aquaculture industry in the coming years as well (Bentzon‐Tilia et al., 2016). However, with a few exceptions, such as studies on recirculating aquaculture systems and fish‐associated microbial communities (van Kessel et al., 2011; Llewellyn et al., 2014), the aquaculture microbiome has not been characterized to the same degree as its terrestrial counterpart. In contrast, most studies concerning the aquaculture microbiome relies on bacterial isolation and PCR‐based approaches. Hence, the implementation of microbiome‐based products is in its infancy and many practices are still of a ‘hope for the best’ fertilization‐based nature (Moriarty, 1997), where specific functional groups of the aquaculture microbiome are enriched for by adding, for example carbon‐rich substrates. This is the case for most ‘biofloc’ approaches where molasses or an equivalent C‐rich fertilizer is added as a means to increase the C:N ratio and induce the growth of the C‐limited heterotrophic fraction of the aquaculture microbiome, which in turn will remove toxic ammonia (NH3) from the rearing water and form bioflocs (Bossier and Ekasari, 2017). Recirculated aquaculture systems (RAS) and biofilters have facilitated the rearing of fish in closed systems with a minimum of water being exchanged with the surrounding environment. This relies on the successful colonization of large‐surface area structures by bacteria such as Nitrosomonas spp. and Nitrospira spp. that in combination convert NH3 to nitrate (NO3 −). Common for these approaches is that they in most cases have relied on modulation of the existing microbiome in the system. However, applications of targeted microbiome‐based products containing a seeding microbial assemblage to aid the heterotrophic assimilation of inorganic nitrogen and/or the nitrification process are now a common practice in intensive tropical pond‐based aquaculture systems (Castex et al., 2014). In the case of RAS technology, a similar approach to aid in the colonization of biofilters is highly desirable as it may take up to several months to obtain an efficient microbiome, specifically in marine biofilters (Manthe and Malone, 1987; Gutierrez‐Wing and Malone, 2006). Seeding communities of nitrifiers for pond systems are already available, for example Pond Protect by Novozymes (Table 1), and these have been shown to mitigate increased NH3 and nitrite (NO2 −) levels in RAS systems as well (Kuhn et al., 2010). Furthermore, nitrification can be coupled with an efficient microbial denitrification process as a powerful tool in the complete removal of nitrogenous compounds from the system, and the development and application of a joined nitrification and denitrification approach for recirculated aquaculture systems, similar to the Aqua Science® concept from Camanor, likely represents an area of potential business development. The commercialization of targeted microbiome‐based products containing living microorganisms, such as seeding microbial assemblages that improve water quality, has been seen for use in aquaria for decades, for example the BIO‐Spira product from MarineLand Labs and its predecessors, which like Pond Protect and similar microbiome‐based products for aquaculture systems contain bacterial assemblages that remove ammonia and nitrite. Similar microbiome‐based products for use in conjunction with biofloc technology are also available now. One such product is ShrimpShield by Keeton Probiotics, which facilitates biofloc formation, degradation of sludge as well as microbial removal of NH3 and NO2 − (Table 1). Hence, such microbiome‐based products aim to improve water quality and in some cases remove potential pathogens through, for example, competitive exclusion (Table 1).
Table 1

Microbiome‐based products for conditioning of water and pond as well as promotion of a healthy production animal microbiome (feed and feed additives)

Target environmentCompanyProductPurposeCompositionReference
Water and pondAquaInTechPRO4000X, AquaPro B, AquaPro EZDegrade organic matter, reduce ammonia, Vibrio reduction2 Strains of Bacillus – Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis 1, 2, 3
BiominAquastarStabilize water quality, improve pond bottom quality and support the gut health of fish and shrimpFormula not publicly available4
Keeton IndustriesWaste & Sludge ReducerImprove water and bottom quality, pathogen control Bacillus cereus RRRL B‐305355, 6
Keeton ProbioticsShrimpShield, PondTossDegrade organic sludge, improve feed efficiencyFormula not publicly available7, 8
LallemandLalsea BioremDegrade organic matter, reduce ammonia, pathogen control, stabilize pH7 specific bacterial strains9
NovozymesPond PlusPathogen control, decomposition of organic substancesSpore forming bacteria10
NovozymesPond DtoxHydrogen sulphide control Paracoccus pantotrophus 11
NovozymesPond ProtectAmmonia and nitrite reduction Nitrosomonas eutropha, Nitrobacter winogradskyi 12
Gut microbiome (feed, feed additive)AquaInTechAquaPro FOrganic matter degradation, improved digestion of feedFive strains of bacillus combined13
EvonikEcoBiolImprove gut health Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 594014
Keeton ProbioticsFeedTreatDegrade organic sludge and improve feed efficiencyFormula not publicly available15
LallemandBactocell® Reduce deformities across fish species, improve gut health across a range of fish and shrimp species Pediococcus acidilactici (MA18/5M)16, 17
RubinumTOYOCERIN® Promote growth, increase specimen homogeneity, improve intestinal mucosa Bacillus cereus var. toyoi 18, 19

References: (1) http://www.aqua-in-tech.com/pro4000x.html; (2) http://www.aqua-in-tech.com/aquapro-b.html; (3) http://www.aqua-in-tech.com/aquapro-ez.html; (4) http://www.biomin.net/en/products/aquastar/; (5) http://keetonaquatics.com/beneficial-microbes/waste-and-sludge-reducer/; (6) Patent ‘US 6878373 B2’; (7) http://keetonaqua.com/products/beneficial-microbes/shrimpshield/; (8) http://keetonaqua.com/products/beneficial-microbes/pondtoss/; (9) http://lallemandanimalnutrition.com/en/asia/products/lalsea-biorem-aquaculture/; (10) http://www.syndelasia.com/aquaculture-probiotics/pond-aquaculture-probiotics-amp-water-manage-26/pond-plus_38; (11) http://ponddtox.com/; (12) http://www.syndelasia.com/aquaculture-probiotics/pond-aquaculture-probiotics-amp-water-manage-26/pond-protect_40; (13) http://www.aqua-in-tech.com/aquapro-f.html; (14) http://animal-nutrition.evonik.com/product/feed-additives/en/products/probiotics/ecobiol/pages/default.aspx; (15) http://keetonaqua.com/products/beneficial-microbes/feedtreat/; (16) http://lallemandanimalnutrition.com/en/asia/products/bactocell-2/; (17) http://www.biomar.com/en/denmark/product-and-species/pike-perch/fry_feeds/; (18) http://www.rubinum.es/en/especies/#acuicultura; (19) http://www.rubinum.es/en/productos/.

Microbiome‐based products for conditioning of water and pond as well as promotion of a healthy production animal microbiome (feed and feed additives) References: (1) http://www.aqua-in-tech.com/pro4000x.html; (2) http://www.aqua-in-tech.com/aquapro-b.html; (3) http://www.aqua-in-tech.com/aquapro-ez.html; (4) http://www.biomin.net/en/products/aquastar/; (5) http://keetonaquatics.com/beneficial-microbes/waste-and-sludge-reducer/; (6) Patent ‘US 6878373 B2’; (7) http://n class="Chemical">keetonaqua.com/products/beneficial-microbes/shrimpshield/; (8) http://keetonaqua.com/products/beneficial-microbes/pondtoss/; (9) http://lallemandanimalnutrition.com/en/asia/products/lalsea-biorem-aquaculture/; (10) http://www.syndelasia.com/aquaculture-probiotics/pond-aquaculture-probiotics-amp-water-manage-26/pond-plus_38; (11) http://ponddtox.com/; (12) http://www.syndelasia.com/aquaculture-probiotics/pond-aquaculture-probiotics-amp-water-manage-26/pond-protect_40; (13) http://www.aqua-in-tech.com/aquapro-f.html; (14) http://animal-nutrition.evonik.com/product/feed-additives/en/products/probiotics/ecobiol/pages/default.aspx; (15) http://keetonaqua.com/products/beneficial-microbes/feedtreat/; (16) http://lallemandanimalnutrition.com/en/asia/products/bactocell-2/; (17) http://www.biomar.com/en/denmark/product-and-species/pike-perch/fry_feeds/; (18) http://www.rubinum.es/en/especies/#acuicultura; (19) http://www.rubinum.es/en/productos/. Another category of microbiome‐based products that is being developed for the aquaculture industry targets the gut of the animal directly (Table 1), equivalent to the more conventional probiotics for livestock and human consumption. Microbial strains evaluated as probiotics for aquaculture are from many phylogenetic lineages; however, most of them belong to two bacterial phyla, the Firmicutes (e.g. n class="Species">Bacillus spp., Lactobacillus spp., Lactococcus spp. and Carnobacterium spp.) and the Proteobacteria (e.g. Vibrio spp., Pseudomonas spp. and Shewanella spp.), while yeasts are rarely studied (Gatesoupe, 2007). The majority of the commercially available probiotic feed and feed additives for aquaculture are based on pure or mixed cultures of lactic acid bacteria and Bacilli (Merrifield et al., 2010; Castex et al., 2014). This includes Bactocell® (Lallemand; Table 1), which is based on a Pediococcus acidilactici strain and is, to the best of our knowledge, the only probiotic registered in Europe for use in aquaculture feed. These bacteria are usually well studied and well known for their positive effect on the human and animal gut microbiome (Cutting, 2011). Furthermore, they are Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS) or Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS), which makes it easier to obtain authorization for their use in food and feed products. A natural extension of this type of microbiome‐based products, and a potential new avenue to be explored in aquaculture microbiome business creation, is the controlled colonization of the reared fish from larvae to adult by a microbiome that has the desired functional traits and can act as an infection barrier against pathogens and prevent major economic losses by crashes in the population (De Schryver and Vadstein, 2014). The successful application of probiotic Firmicutes, originally applied as probiotics for humans or livestock, in aquaculture is fortunate considering the divergent niches in which these probiotics need to establish themselves and function. An avenue of potential new enterprises is to develop similar products based on bacteria of marine origin instead. Marine bacteria including members of the Roseobacter group and the Vibrio and n class="Species">Shewanella genera have been studied extensively for their probiotic potential (Austin et al., 1995; Ringø and Vadstein, 1998; Díaz‐Rosales et al., 2009; D'Alvise et al., 2012; Lobo et al., 2014; Grotkjær et al., 2016; Bentzon‐Tilia and Gram, 2017). Furthermore, these are often found as part of the indigenous microbiome of marine eukaryotes, and although their application as probiotics has been proposed, they have not yet reached a commercialization stage. To succeed with this approach, much more thorough characterizations of aquaculture and marine host microbiomes are needed. Furthermore, in most cases, the putative probiotic candidates reported in scientific publications do not go on to commercialization and industrial application. Getting a probiont to the commercial market requires many additional steps including assessments of safety, scale‐up efficacy, production scale‐up and pre‐market registration. Consistency, efficiency and most importantly safety are key points in all large‐scale productions, and they should be considered from the early stages of the discovery phase to the final application in feed products. Thus, not only does the development of a commercial product rely on substantial financial investments, but also on the contribution from a multidisciplinary team encompassing close collaborations between scientists, aquaculture experts, fermentation engineers and regulatory personnel. The latter part of the team is important for success in a regulatory landscape which varies from an absence of regulation in certain countries to a rigid regulatory framework not always adapted to the effect a probiotic can display. Despite these challenges, the aquaculture industry has already embraced the industrial application of microbiome‐based products for the last two decades, and this has truly created a vast range of new enterprises especially in South East Asia, Central and South America and more recently in Europe. Using microbiome‐based products also requires developments of production, packaging and distribution technology. One must consider that the efficiency of such products only in part depends on the choice of the microbial strains that compose it (selection), but also on the way the product is produced, conditioned and finally packaged to withstand a variety of storage conditions. In conclusion, the aquaculture industry is one of the fastest growing food producing sectors in the world and the increased productivity of this sector is essential for the fulfilment of the sustainable development goals of the UN. Microbiome‐based products for application in industrial aquaculture are today a reality, but the full potential is far from exploited. Despite decades of experience and an increasing number of microbial biotechnological products, there is a large innovation potential; from the discovery of new probionts of marine origin and large‐scale cultivation strategies to manoeuvering the political, regulatory landscape and disseminating the use of probiotics to ensure future, sustainable technologies for high‐quality protein production.
  13 in total

Review 1.  Aquaculture disease and health management.

Authors:  F P Meyer
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 2.  Bacillus probiotics.

Authors:  Simon M Cutting
Journal:  Food Microbiol       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 5.516

3.  Colonization of Vibrio pelagius and Aeromonas caviae in early developing turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.) larvae.

Authors:  E Ringø; O Vadstein
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.772

4.  Pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicons to study the microbiota in the gastrointestinal tract of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.).

Authors:  Maartje Ahj van Kessel; Bas E Dutilh; Kornelia Neveling; Michael P Kwint; Joris A Veltman; Gert Flik; Mike Sm Jetten; Peter Hm Klaren; Huub Jm Op den Camp
Journal:  AMB Express       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 3.298

5.  Biofloc technology application in aquaculture to support sustainable development goals.

Authors:  Peter Bossier; Julie Ekasari
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 5.813

6.  Creating new business, economic growth and regional prosperity through microbiome-based products in the agriculture industry.

Authors:  Brajesh K Singh
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 5.813

7.  Phaeobacter gallaeciensis reduces Vibrio anguillarum in cultures of microalgae and rotifers, and prevents vibriosis in cod larvae.

Authors:  Paul W D'Alvise; Siril Lillebø; Maria J Prol-Garcia; Heidrun I Wergeland; Kristian F Nielsen; Øivind Bergh; Lone Gram
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Teleost microbiomes: the state of the art in their characterization, manipulation and importance in aquaculture and fisheries.

Authors:  Martin S Llewellyn; Sébastien Boutin; Seyed Hossein Hoseinifar; Nicolas Derome
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 5.640

9.  Ecological theory as a foundation to control pathogenic invasion in aquaculture.

Authors:  Peter De Schryver; Olav Vadstein
Journal:  ISME J       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 10.302

Review 10.  Monitoring and managing microbes in aquaculture - Towards a sustainable industry.

Authors:  Mikkel Bentzon-Tilia; Eva C Sonnenschein; Lone Gram
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2016-07-24       Impact factor: 5.813

View more
  5 in total

1.  Changes in the Microbiome of Mariculture Feed Organisms after Treatment with a Potentially Probiotic Strain of Phaeobacter inhibens.

Authors:  Karen K Dittmann; Bastian Barker Rasmussen; Jette Melchiorsen; Eva C Sonnenschein; Lone Gram; Mikkel Bentzon-Tilia
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Visualizing the invisible: class excursions to ignite children's enthusiasm for microbes.

Authors:  Terry J McGenity; Amare Gessesse; John E Hallsworth; Esther Garcia Cela; Carol Verheecke-Vaessen; Fengping Wang; Max Chavarría; Max M Haggblom; Søren Molin; Antoine Danchin; Eddy J Smid; Cédric Lood; Charles S Cockell; Corinne Whitby; Shuang-Jiang Liu; Nancy P Keller; Lisa Y Stein; Seth R Bordenstein; Rup Lal; Olga C Nunes; Lone Gram; Brajesh K Singh; Nicole S Webster; Cindy Morris; Sharon Sivinski; Saskia Bindschedler; Pilar Junier; André Antunes; Bonnie K Baxter; Paola Scavone; Kenneth Timmis
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 5.813

3.  Role is in the eye of the beholder-the multiple functions of the antibacterial compound tropodithietic acid produced by marine Rhodobacteraceae.

Authors:  Nathalie N S E Henriksen; Laura L Lindqvist; Mario Wibowo; Eva C Sonnenschein; Mikkel Bentzon-Tilia; Lone Gram
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Rev       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 15.177

4.  Intestinal microbiome-mediated resistance against vibriosis for Cynoglossus semilaevis.

Authors:  Qian Zhou; Xue Zhu; Yangzhen Li; Pengshuo Yang; Shengpeng Wang; Kang Ning; Songlin Chen
Journal:  Microbiome       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 16.837

5.  Accessing Nystatin through Mariculture.

Authors:  James J La Clair
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 4.411

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.