| Literature DB >> 35432254 |
Brendan Fries1,2, Benjamin J K Davis1,2,3, Anne E Corrigan1,2, Angelo DePaola4, Frank C Curriero1,2.
Abstract
The Pacific Northwest (PNW) is one of the largest commercial harvesting areas for Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in the United States. Vibrio parahaemolyticus, a bacterium naturally present in estuarine waters accumulates in shellfish and is a major cause of seafood-borne illness. Growers, consumers, and public-health officials have raised concerns about rising vibriosis cases in the region. Vibrio parahaemolyticus genetic markers (tlh, tdh, and trh) were estimated using an most-probable-number (MPN)-PCR technique in Washington State Pacific oysters regularly sampled between May and October from 2005 to 2019 (N = 2,836); environmental conditions were also measured at each sampling event. Multilevel mixed-effects regression models were used to assess relationships between environmental measures and genetic markers as well as genetic marker ratios (trh:tlh, tdh:tlh, and tdh:trh), accounting for variation across space and time. Spatial and temporal dependence were also accounted for in the model structure. Model fit improved when including environmental measures from previous weeks (1-week lag for air temperature, 3-week lag for salinity). Positive associations were found between tlh and surface water temp, specifically between 15 and 26°C, and between trh and surface water temperature up to 26°C. tlh and trh were negatively associated with 3-week lagged salinity in the most saline waters (> 27 ppt). There was also a positive relationship between tissue temperature and tdh, but only above 20°C. The tdh:tlh ratio displayed analogous inverted non-linear relationships as tlh. The non-linear associations found between the genetic targets and environmental measures demonstrate the complex habitat suitability of V. parahaemolyticus. Additional associations with both spatial and temporal variables also suggest there are influential unmeasured environmental conditions that could further explain bacterium variability. Overall, these findings confirm previous ecological risk factors for vibriosis in Washington State, while also identifying new associations between lagged temporal effects and pathogenic markers of V. parahaemolyticus.Entities:
Keywords: Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas); Vibrio parahaemolyticus; Washington (state); mixed-effects model; spatial modeling; temporal modeling
Year: 2022 PMID: 35432254 PMCID: PMC9007611 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.849336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Oyster growing areas by zone in Washington state. Figure shows growing areas (blue hatched polygons) in (A) Northern Waters including Samish Bay, (B) Hood Canal and South Puget Sound, and (C) Coastal Bays. Puget Sound and Hood Canal represent separate oyster “zones” for the purpose of this study.
Figure 2Schematic illustration of base nested model structure. First level environmental conditions fixed effects are modified by higher level spatial and temporal random effects. Spatial random effect of Sample-Site-Year-Group (SSYG; j) is nested within effect of oyster growing zone (i) in Washington state. Temporal random effect of sampling week (h) is nested within random effect of year (g). Spatial and temporal model levels modify relationship between environmental conditions and concentrations of Vibrio parahaemolyticus genetic markers (tlh or trh or tdh or ratio of two markers, etc.) in the model. Water Temp consisted of two measurements (surface water temperature and shore water temperature).
Figure 3Cumulative oyster sampling reported by (A) year and (B) zone.
Figure 4Kernel density plots of weekly sampling across time of year, stratified by zone and year. Note that the estimations are used solely as a visualization tool and not for statistical smoothing, as the number of samples and sampling frequency were not consistent across years.
Descriptive characteristics of environmental and genetic variables including variation across sampling zones.
| Characteristic | Overall ( | Zones | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coastal Bays ( | Hood Canal ( | Northern Waters ( | Puget Sound ( | ||
| Salinity (ppt) | 27.0 [5.88] | 29.0 [5.00] | 25.0 [8.00] | 27.2 [8.75] | 28.2 [4.00] |
| Tissue Temp (°C) | 20.0 [7.72] | 17.2 [4.50] | 20.4 [8.30] | 18.7 [4.71] | 21.1 [7.90] |
| Air Temp (°C) | 17.7 [5.90] | 16.1 [4.20] | 17.8 [6.00] | 17.0 [4.95] | 18.2 [5.83] |
| Shore Water Temp (°C) | 19.9 [4.70] | 19.4 [3.50] | 19.7 [4.80] | 21.6 [6.30] | 19.9 [4.60] |
| Surface Water Temp (°C) | 18.3 [3.50] | 17.8 [2.60] | 18.5 [4.10] | 17.3 [5.70] | 18.4 [3.00] |
| 43.0 [426] | 4.2 [19.3] | 120 [921] | 4.3 [37.7] | 43.0 [421] | |
| 4.2 [22.3] | 4.2 [14.1] | 3.80 [22.6] | 0.92 [3.84] | 4.30 [22.1] | |
| 0.3 [0.77] | 0.36 [0.77] | 0.3 [0.59] | 0.3 [0.59] | 0.36 [0.77] | |
| 0.01 [0.06] | 0.13 [0.36] | 0.004 [0.02] | 0.07 [0.10] | 0.01 [0.05] | |
| 0.20 [0.50] | 0.130 [0.37] | 0.216 [0.97] | 0.363 [0.35] | 0.157 [0.38] | |
| 0.057 [0.21] | 1.00 [0.59] | 0.025 [0.10] | 0.077 [0.10] | 0.084 [0.22] | |
Table displays median of values and [Q3–Q1] for each characteristic of the overall dataset and stratified by harvesting zones.
Fixed effect estimates from univariate and multivariate regression models of tlh, trh, and tdh with environmental covariates.
| log10
| log10
| log10
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |
|
| ||||||
| Salinity (ppt)–3 week lag | – | – | – | – | 0.00 (0.00, 0.01) |
|
|
| −0.03 (−0.29, 0.23) | 0.04 (−0.17, 0.26) | −0.46 (−0.81, −0.11) | −0.37 (−0.67, −0.07) | – | – |
|
| −0.61 (−0.91, −0.32) | −0.26 (−0.50, −0.02) | −0.90 (−1.32, −0.48) | −0.49 (−0.85, −0.13) | ||
| Tissue Temp (°C) | 0.07 (0.06, 0.08) | 0.02 (0.01, 0.03) | 0.09 (0.08, 0.1) | 0.04 (0.02, 0.05) | – | – |
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.19 (−0.06, 0.45) | −0.03 (−0.31, 0.25) |
|
| 1.24 (1.01, 1.48) | 0.75 (0.43, 1.06) | ||||
| Air Temp (°C)—1 week lag | 0.06 (0.05, 0.07) | 0.03 (0.02, 0.04) | 0.05 (0.04, 0.07) | 0.03 (0.02, 0.04) | – | – |
| Surface Water Temp (°C) | – | – | – | – | 0.06 (0.05, 0.08) | 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) |
|
| −0.13 (−0.66, 0.40) | −0.17 (−0.64, 0.30) | 2.91 (2.51, 3.32) | 1.59 (1.15, 2.04) | – | – |
|
| 2.21 (1.71, 2.71) | 1.40 (0.92, 1.89) | ||||
|
| 1.10 (0.11, 2.10) | 0.64 (−0.25, 1.52) | 2.06 (1.29, 2.83) | 1.01 (0.30,1.71) | ||
Results are displayed as the log-transformed, pooled parameter estimates of the model with associated 95% CIs. Reported associations are adjusted for region and year, as well as autocorrelation between weeks in the case of .
Indicated null effect (0) and exclusion from multivariate model.
Univariate and multivariate associations between the tdh:tlh ratio with environmental covariates.
| log10
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|
| |||
| Salinity (ppt)—3 week lag | – | – | |
|
| 0.04 (−0.23, 0.31) | 0.05 (−0.21, 0.31) | |
|
| 0.26 (−0.02, 0.55) | 0.39 (0.11, 0.67) | |
| Tissue Temp (°C) | −0.03 (−0.04, −0.02) |
| |
|
| |||
|
| – | – | |
| Air Temp (°C)—1 week lag | −0.04 (−0.05, −0.02) | −0.02 (−0.03, −0.01) | |
| Surface Water Temp (°C) | – | – | |
|
| −0.08 (−0.60, 0.45) | −0.02 (−0.53, 0.48) | |
|
| −1.40 (−1.90, −0.91) | −1.17 (−1.65, −0.69) | |
|
| −0.66 (−1.70, 0.39) | −0.56 (−1.53, 0.42) | |
Results are displayed as the log-transformed, pooled parameter estimates of the model with associated 95% CIs. Reported associations are adjusted for region and year, as well as autocorrelation between weeks.
Indicated null effect (0) and exclusion from multivariate model.
Model random effects for zone and sample site year group (SSYG).
| Random effects | log10
| log10
| log10
| log10
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Salinity (ppt) | |||||
|
| 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.26 | |
|
| 0.41 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.44 | |
| Tissue Temp (°C) | |||||
|
| 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.24 | |
|
| 0.39 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.44 | |
| Air Temp (°C) | |||||
|
| 0.31 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.26 | |
|
| 0.40 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.45 | |
| Surface Water Temp (°C) | |||||
|
| 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.26 | |
|
| 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.38 | |
|
| |||||
|
| 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.19 | |
|
| 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.02 | |
Estimate of random intercept effect size for univariate and multivariate models. Sample Site Year Groups were time and space matched e.g. Totten Inlet-2017.
Model variable temporal autocorrelation structure and residual significance.
| ARMA ( | Breusch–Godfrey test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Standard error | BG | ||
|
| ||||
| – | – | 4.58 | 0.21 | |
| AR(1) | 0.79 | 0.02 | – | – |
| MA(1) | −0.38 | 0.03 | – | – |
| – | – | 3.20 | 0.36 | |
| AR(1) | 0.74 | 0.04 | – | – |
| MA(1) | −0.40 | 0.05 | – | – |
| – | – | 2.72 | 0.44 | |
| AR(1) | 0.79 | 0.03 | – | – |
| MA(1) | −0.56 | 0.04 | – | – |
|
| – | – | 0.56 | 0.91 |
| AR(1) | 0.92 | 0.02 | – | – |
| MA(1) | −0.65 | 0.03 | – | – |
|
| – | – | 1.72 | 0.63 |
| AR(1) | 0.85 | 0.02 | – | – |
| MA(1) | −0.52 | 0.03 | – | – |
|
| – | – | 4.81 | 0.19 |
| AR(1) | 0.85 | 0.03 | – | – |
| MA(1) | −0.60 | 0.05 | – | – |
Reported associations are adjusted for all environmental and genetic covariates as well as region and year. Nested autoregressive–moving-average (ARMA) model of multivariate models’ residuals for one (1) time step. Nonsignificant value of .
Univariate and multivariate sinusoidal function of tdh across years.
| Model coefficients | Univariate | Multivariate |
|---|---|---|
| sin(2 * π * ( | 0.19 (0.11, 0.27) | 0.20 (0.12, 0.28) |
| cos(2 * π * ( | 0.14 (0.06, 0.23) | 0.06 (−0.03, 0.15) |
Variable .
Figure 5Sinusoidal trend of log tdh values across time. Plotted results of univariate model coefficients shown in Table 6.