| Literature DB >> 31323873 |
Javad Sahandi1,2, Partick Sorgeloos3, Hui Xiao1,2, Xianghong Wang1, Zizhong Qi1, Yanfen Zheng1, Xuexi Tang4,5.
Abstract
Vibrio species are a significant causative of mass mortality in mariculture worldwide, which can quickly accumulate in live food and transmit into the larval gut. With restrictions on the use of antibiotics in aquaculture, finding a proper solution to reduce the risk of Vibriosis is vital. This study aimed to evaluate the susceptibility of Vibrio harveyi, V. campbellii, V. anguillarum, and V. parahaemolyticus to twenty-six bacterial and yeast strains and use the beneficial ones to enrich live food (Branchiopod, Artemia franciscana, rotifer, Brachionus plicatilis and copepod, Tigriopus japonicus). Thus, a modified disk diffusion method was applied. After a susceptibility assay, the bacteria and yeast beneficial in suppressing the Vibrio species were labeled by fluorescent stain and used to measure the accumulation potential in different live foods. Also, the beneficial bacteria and yeast were used to enrich live foods, and then the count of loaded Vibrio was estimated after 5, 10, 15, and 20 hours by the serial dilution method. From the total bacteria and yeast strains that were used, Candida parapsilosis, Pseudoalteromonas flavipulchra, Lactobacillus sakei, Bacillus natto, and B. amyloliquefaciens inhibited all four Vibrio species. The results of microbial labeling showed that L. sakei in Artemia, C. parapsilosis in rotifers, and V. harveyi in copepods had the highest accumulation rate. The results of the estimation of loaded Vibrio in different live foods also showed that the use of beneficial bacteria and yeast each significantly reduced the count of Vibrio. Application of bacteria and yeast to suppress pathogenic Vibrio maybe a sustainable method for preventing this pathogen from harmfully invading aquaculture and may also aid in reducing the chances of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic Vibrio.Entities:
Keywords: Vibrio; aquaculture; bacillus; lactobacillus; resistance; yeasts
Year: 2019 PMID: 31323873 PMCID: PMC6784084 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics8030095
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
The results of the susceptibility of Vibrio species to different strains of bacteria and yeast.
| Yeast Strains |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ++ | + | − | + | |
| + | ++ | ++ | + | |
| +++++ | − | − | + | |
| +++ | − | − | + | |
| ++ | − | − | + | |
| ++ | − | − | + | |
| ++ | − | − | ++ | |
| +++ | − | − | + | |
| +++ | − | − | − | |
| ++++ | − | − | − | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ++ | − | − | − | |
| +++ | +++++ | +++ | ++++ | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| − | − | − | − | |
| − | − | − | − | |
| − | − | − | − | |
| ++ | + | ++ | ++ | |
| − | − | + | + | |
| − | − | − | − | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ++ | − | − | + | |
| − | − | − | + | |
| − | + | + | − | |
| +++++ | ++ | ++++ | + | |
| − | ++ | ++ | − | |
| +++ | +++ | ++++ | + | |
| − | + | + | − | |
| − | − | − | − |
Note: − Resistance; + ≤10 mm; ++ <15 mm; +++ <20 mm; ++++ <25 mm; +++++ <30 mm.
Corrected total cell fluorescence of three live food species (Artemia, Rotifer, and Copepod) exposure with labeled Bacillus natto, Pseudoalteromonas flavipulchra, Lactobacillus sakei, Candida parapsilosis, and Vibrio harveyi for three hours between organisms (n = 9; p < 0.05; Tukey HD).
| Live Food | Microbial Strains (CTCF × 105 cell/individual) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.6 ± 0.18 c | 2.40 ± 035 b,c | 3.56 ± 0.55 a | 2.39 ± 0.04 b,c | 2.77 ± 0.5 a,b |
|
| 3.41 ± 0.21 a | 2.98 ± 0.85 a,b | 3.07 ± 0.2 a,b | 2.19 ± 0.53 b | 277 ± 0.38 a,b |
|
| 2.60 ± 0.36 a,b | 2.17 ± 0.11c | 3.47 ± 0.44 b,c | 3.11 ± 0.24 a,b,c | 3.62 ± 4.66 a |
Means in the same row sharing the same superscript letter showed insignificant differences determined by Tukey’s test (p > 0.05). Data are expressed as mean ± S.E (n = 15).
Mean values (±SD) of Vibrio species counts in three different live foods which were enriched with different bacteria and yeasts over 5, 10, 15, and 20 h.
| Treatment | 107 CFU/g | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 h | 10 h | 15 h | 20 h | |
| Control | 7 ± 0.1 c | 8.3 ± 0.2 c | 8.3 ± 0.4 c | 10.1 ± 0.1 d |
|
| 2.9 ± 0.1 b | 3.7 ± 0.1 b | 2.7 ± 0.1 b,c | 4.9 ± 0.2 c |
|
| 0.9 ± 0.2 a | 1.1 ± 0.2 a | 0.7 ± 0.3 a | 1.7 ± 0.2 b |
|
| 0.5 ± 0.1 a | 0.9 a | 1.4 ± 0.2 b | 1.1 ± 0.3 a |
|
| 0.7 ± 0.1 a | 0.4 ± 0.1 a | 1.4 ± 0.2 b | 1.2 ± 0.2 a |
| 107 CFU/g rotifer | ||||
| Control | 12.1 ± 0.3 d | 12.6 ± 0.3 d | 12.2 ± 0.5 d | 14 ± 0.3 d |
|
| 8.0 c | 7.5 ± 0.2 c | 6.5 ± 0.2 c | 6.5 ± 0.3 c |
|
| 1.6 ± 0.2 a | 1.1 ± 0.2 a | 0.4 ± 0.2 a | 0.2 a |
|
| 0.9 ± 0.1 a | 0.7 a | 0.4 a | 0.3 a |
|
| 6.0 ± 0.2 b | 4.4 ± 0.5 b | 2.3 ± 0.4 b | 1.7 ± 0.1 b |
| 106 CFU/g copepod | ||||
| Control | 10.6 ± 0.2 d | 10.8 ± 0.1 d | 11.3 ± 0.2 d | 13.1 ± 0.3 d |
|
| 8.3 ± 0.2 c | 9.1 ± 0.1 c | 8.1 ± 0.2 c | 8.1 ± 0.2 c |
|
| 3.3 ± 0.1 a | 1.1 ± 0.2 a | 0.7 ± 0.3 a | 2.1 ± 0.3 a |
|
| 5.3 ± 0.2 a,b | 3.7 ± 0.1 b | 2.5 ± 0.3 b | 1.1 ± 0.3 a |
|
| 6.3 ± 0.5 b | 3.9 ± 0.2 b | 3.2 ± 0.1 b | 2.5 ± 0.1 b |
Different uppercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05), the highest score express the lowest loading rate of Vibrio.
Figure 1The results of the corrected total cell fluorescence of different microbial uptakes and a final comparison among different live foods recorded for three hours. The micrographs are presented to show the accumulation form of different bacteria and yeast in different live foods (n = 9; A: Bacillus natto, B: Lactobacillus sakei, C: Pseudoalteromonas flavipulchra, D: Vibrio harveyi, and E: Candida parapsilosis).
Figure 2Representation of bacteria and yeast inoculation/adhesion rates alongside the different live foods’ (Artemia franciscana, Tigriopus japonicus, and Brachionus plicatilis) body after 3 h. Each graph refers to the count of labeled bacteria along the imaginary line that started from the head to tail of the organism, which was estimated by ImageJ software and the results are presented in the pixels (blue line refers to Artemia; red line refers to copepods; green line refers to rotifers; n = 15).
Figure 3Schematic procedure of the fluorescent labeling of DNA and microscopy; this procedure was carried out for each one of the bacteria and yeast; the chemical structure of Bisbenzimide Hoechst 33342 (C27H28N6O), IUPAC name: 2′-(4-Ethoxyphenyl)-6-(4-methyl-1-piperazinyl)-1H,3′H-2,5′-bibenzimidazole.
The bacteria and yeast strains that were used for the susceptibility test.
| Strain Code | Bacterial Strains | Reference | Strain Code | Yeast Strains | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S4 |
a
| [ | 82 |
a
| - |
| - |
b
| [ | 1401 |
a
| - |
| - |
a
| [ | 1501 |
a
| - |
| SRB-3 |
a
| [ | 3901 |
a
| - |
| S18 |
a
| [ | 4201 | a | [ |
| - |
b
| - | 4901 |
a
| - |
| - |
b
| - | 6101 |
a
| - |
|
a
| |||||
| - |
b
| [ | K226 |
a
| [ |
| 1.2696 |
c
| - | YF07b |
a
| - |
| 1.6 |
c
| [ | K176 |
a
| - |
| - |
d
| [ | 82 | ||
| - |
d
| - | |||
| JG1 |
a
| - |
a strains obtained from the College of Marine Life Science, OUC, Qingdao, China; b strains obtained from Wangfa Biology Co., Hebei, China; c strains obtained from the Department of Food Science and Engineering, OUC, Qingdao, China; d strains obtained from a commercial product (Beijing, China).