bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture friend or foe

8

Click here to load reader

Upload: mysiteww

Post on 01-Dec-2014

414 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture   friend or foe

[email protected]

BACTERIOPHAGE THERAPY IN AQUACULTURE – FRIEND OR FOE?

LISA ELLIOTT

AusPhage Pty Ltd

Australia

Introduction

Aquaculture is currently one of the fastest growing food producing industries in the world with an average growth rate

of 6.2% (2000-2012)(FAO, 2014). In 2000, farmed food fish contributed 25.7% to global total fish production,

increasing to 42.2% in 2012 with a total worth in excess of US$144 billion (FAO, 2014). The aquaculture and fisheries

sectors also provide significant nutritional requirements to people in developed and developing countries and a source

of income and livelihood to approximately 58.3 million people, equivalent to 10-12% of the world population (FAO,

2014). With a dramatic increase in population growth and an ever-increasing demand for seafood, aquaculture is an

increasingly important source of sustainable food production (WHO, 1999). The need for sustainable aquaculture has

lead to an increase in research and development across a range of areas such as nutrition, environmental impacts, good

management procedures and disease control, and consequently contributed to great improvements in these areas.

However the greatest threats to sustainable aquaculture are biological (infectious disease) and chemical (agrochemicals,

chemotherapeutants, contaminants, and organic pollutants)(OIE, 2011).

The growth of the aquaculture sector is extensively impeded by infectious disease, the effects of which have a

significant impact on the economy and health of many countries and people of the world (FAO, 2005). A report by

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) states, “A multitude of factors has contributed to the

health problems currently faced by aquaculture. Over the past three decades, aquaculture has expanded, intensified, and

diversified, based heavily on movements of animals and animal products such as broodstock, seed, and feed. Such

movements are now clearly recognized as having played a pivotal role in the introduction and spread of pathogens and

disease into aquaculture systems” (FAO, 2005). The report also identifies the impact of disease and associated

production losses on the livelihoods of communities by loss of employment and income and a subsequent decrease in

food availability.

Disease outbreaks (parasitic, viral and bacterial) in the past have resulted in losses amounting to billions of dollars to

the aquaculture industry (Leung et al., 2013; FAO, 2014). Advances in the understanding of how many of these

pathogenic organisms cause disease and implementation of ‘good management practices’ within the industry, have

helped in the control of many pathogens. Research and development of vaccines has significantly aided in the control of

many viral and bacterial pathogens and this has been extensively reviewed (Gudding and Van Muiswinkel, 2013).

Vaccines developed from inactivated bacterial pathogens have been generally successful in the control of bacterial

diseases caused by Vibrio spp., Aeromonas spp., Yersinia spp., Pasteurella spp., Edwardsiella spp., and

Flavobacterium spp., (Holvold et al., 2014). Yet, vaccines to control viral disease are vastly fewer and no vaccines have

been developed for parasites (Holvold et al., 2014). To date there have been no commercial vaccines developed for

invertebrates, however a review on this subject has recently been published with some promising results (Rowley and

Pope, 2012).

Despite advancements in good management practices and vaccine production, bacterial infections still pose major

problems in both hatcheries and grow-out, often resulting in mass mortalities (70-90%). These mortalities are typically

associated with pathogenic Vibrio spp., (Noriega-Orozoo et al., 2007; Chatterjee and Haldar, 2012; Alagappan et al.,

2013; Tran et al., 2013) Aeromonas spp., (Nielsen et al., 2001; Shayo et al., 2012) Pseudomonas spp., (Kumaran et al.,

2010; Shayo et al., 2012) and Streptococcus spp., (Bromage et al., 1999; Lahav et al., 2004; Agnew and Barnes, 2007;

Park et al., 2009; Haenen et al., 2013), all of which have global significance and an increasing number of which are

multi-drug resistant (MDR).

A variety of antimicrobial and chemical treatments have been used to control and treat bacterial disease in humans,

animals and production systems. However, the World Health Organisation report on global surveillance of

antimicrobial resistance states, “Existing antimicrobials are losing their effect. At the same time there is a decline in the

development of new antimicrobials. Similarly, there is insufficient new research into new diagnostics to detect resistant

microorganisms, and vaccines for preventing and controlling infections. If this trend continues, the arsenals of tools to

combat resistant microorganisms will soon be depleted.” (WHO, 2014).

It has been estimated that approximately 23,000 people die annually in the USA as a direct result of infections due to

MDR bacteria and many more die due to complications associated with these infections (Frieden, 2013). The estimated

total health care cost related to these infections is as much as US$26 billion annually (Congress, 2011). These figures

Page 2: Bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture   friend or foe

[email protected]

do not take into consideration the economic impacts of complications associated with MDR infections such as lost

workdays and productivity, or human suffering and the affects on livelihoods. In addition to this, production losses and

suffering due to emergent MDR bacteria in livestock (including aquaculture) has a devastating affect on the economy of

developing countries and animal health and welfare. These problems are of great concern to organisations such as OIE

(World Organisation for Animal Health), WHO (World Health Organisation) and FAO all of which have expressed that

there is an urgent need for the development of sustainable alternative approaches to the control of MDR bacteria.

With the rise in antimicrobial resistance and chemical residues in food, and the tightening of regulations surrounding

the use of chemotherapeutics, bacteriophage may provide a natural, sustainable solution to successfully address this

need.

Bacteriophage

Since their discovery almost 100 years ago, bacteriophages have been investigated extensively and a plethora of

literature reviewing these studies exists (Ellis and Delbruck, 1938; Carlton, 1999; Sulakvelidze et al., 2001; Skurnik and

Strauch, 2006; Loc-Carrillo and Abedon, 2011; Abedon, 2011; Ormala and Jalasvuori, 2013). Bacteriophages

(commonly called phage) are a group of naturally occurring antibacterial agents (viral in nature) that infect only

bacterial cells. It is estimated that in excess of 1030

phage exist, making them the most abundant entities on earth. In all

known environments, phages exist as part of a complex microbial ecosystem. They can be part of a free-living

environment such as soils, vegetation and oceans, or as part of a microbial environment within a macro organism such

as an animal system. Phages play a crucial role in the regulation of nutrient cycling, as sources of diagnostic and genetic

tools and as novel therapeutic agents. To date, phages have been used in a number of areas of biotechnology and

medical science including rapid bacterial detection and diagnosis of disease (phage typing), prevention of bacterial

disease (phage vaccine), treatment (phage therapy) and biocontrol (Haq et al., 2012).

Bacteriophages are highly specific and can only infect bacterial cells that present cell surface receptors matching those

of the phage (similar to a lock and key mechanism)(Lindberg, 1973; Kutter and Sulakvelidze, 2005). Without the

matching receptors, phages are unable to multiply and can quickly be degraded in the environment. Phages can either

multiply via the lytic cycle (virulent phage) or lysogenic cycle (temperate phage). While virulent phages kill the cells

they infect (lytic cycle), temperate phages can establish a persistent infection of the cell without killing it (lysogenic

cycle).

Virulent phages are effective at controlling bacterial populations with no known side effects to human, animal or plant.

The method by which virulent phages kill their specific host bacterium is called ‘lysis’ (Kutter and Sulakvelidze, 2005;

Sulakvelidze, 2011). Virulent phages attach to receptors on the surface of bacteria, insert their genetic material through

the bacterial membrane and take over the bacterium’s transcription and translation machinery to synthesize many new

phages. Finally, the bacterial cell wall is destroyed (lysed), releasing large numbers of newly assembled phage to the

environment, where they can attack new bacteria (Figure 1). This entire process can take as little as 25 minutes (Gill

and Hyman, 2010). Virulent phages have been intensely investigated for their bactericidal properties and are

particularly suitable for applications that require destruction of the host bacterium such as biological control and phage

therapy, making them an attractive treatment alternative to antibiotics.

Conversely, phages that replicate without immediately killing their host bacteria are termed temperate phage. These

phages can either multiply via the lytic cycle (cell death) or enter a dormant state in the cell (lysogeny)(Table 2). In

most cases the phage DNA integrates into the host chromosome (termed prophage) and is replicated along with the host

bacterium, being passed on to the daughter cells (Figure 2)(Kutter and Sulakvelidze, 2005). The host bacterium

continues to replicate without adverse affects to the host until host conditions become unfavourable. At this point the

lytic cycle is initiated and the host cell is destroyed, releasing progeny phage. A bacterial cell that harbors a prophage

may occasionally carry genes that are expressed in the cell and present new properties to the bacteria such as host

virulence (toxin production), increased pathogenicity or antimicrobial resistance (Skurnik and Strauch, 2006; Kutter et

al., 2010; Gill and Hyman, 2010). Temperate phages have various applications and are particularly suited to purposes

that require the transport or expression of genes such as phage display, phage typing and phage vaccines (Haq et al.,

2012). Due to the largely non-lytic nature of temperate phage and their ability to exchange genes, these phages are not

good candidates for therapeutic applications that require immediate destruction of the host cell, such as in the treatment

or control of disease (Haq et al., 2012).

Page 3: Bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture   friend or foe

[email protected]

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the lytic cycle of a virulent bacteriophage. (1) Attachment (host specific) – Penetration

and Insertion - Phage attaches to a specific host bacterium and inserts its genetic material, (2) Bacterial chromosome is

degraded, (3) Transcription - disrupting the bacterial genome and killing the bacterium, (4) Replication - taking over the

bacterial DNA and protein synthesis machinery to make phage components. (5) Assembly - the assembly of new phage, and

(6) Lysis - the lysis of the bacterial cell wall to release hundreds of new copies of phage.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the lytic and lysogenic cycles of a temperate bacteriophage. (1) Attachment (host

specific) - Penetration and Insertion - Phage attaches to a specific host bacterium and inserts its genetic material, (2) The

phage DNA integrates into the host chromosome. This integrated state of phage DNA is termed prophage, (3) Lysogenic

bacterium replicate normally and phage DNA is replicated along with the host chromosome and passed on to the daughter

cells, (4) In the event that host conditions become unfavorable, the lytic cycle is initiated and the host cell is destroyed.

Page 4: Bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture   friend or foe

[email protected]

Bacteriophage Therapy

Phage therapy can be largely described as the use of bacteriophages to control specific pathogenic or problematic

bacteria. In human and animal health sectors, phage therapy has been practiced in regions of Eastern Europe with

proven success for more than 60 years (Kutter et al., 2010). Early phage trials often produced unreliable and

inconsistent results due to a poor understanding of phage biology and quality control during the preparation of phage

therapeutic formulations. As phage therapy was gaining momentum in 1930-1940, antibiotics were discovered and

western countries all but forgot about phage. Due to the isolation of many Eastern European countries from the

advancements in antibiotic production during this time, a number of countries continued to develop and perfect phage

treatments (Chanishvili, 2012). Today phage therapy is a widespread form of treatment in a number of Eastern

European countries such as Russia, Poland and Georgia (Chanishvili, 2012).

Due to the specificity of phages, virulent phage can be considered a natural and effective way to target difficult or

problem bacteria, without affecting normal beneficial bacteria and without negatively affecting the environment.

Importantly, phages are able to infect bacteria regardless of their susceptibility to antibiotics and are capable of

penetrating biofilms (Sulakvelidze et al., 2001; Kutter et al., 2010). As described above, virulent phages kill their

bacterial hosts and liberate large numbers of progeny, which are able to infect neighboring susceptible bacteria and start

the cycle again. This replication continues until the phage can no longer find the specific targeted bacterial cells,

significantly reducing bacterial biomass. It is for this reason that virulent only phages are used in phage therapies.

The use of bacteriophage preparations has advantages and challenges, the critical points being high bacterial specificity,

transference of virulence or toxin genes, appropriate administration of phage preparations and the development of phage

resistant bacteria (Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of bacteriophage in phage therapy.

Advantages Comments Challenges Comments

High specificity. Minimal disruption of normal beneficial

microflora.

Do not contribute to resistance in the

beneficial microflora such as seen with

antibiotics.

High specificity. The disease causing bacterium must be

positively identified before phage therapy

can be successfully initiated. However

phage can be successfully used in

combination with other antimicrobials.

Virulent phages are

bactericidal agents.

The target bacteria are killed and are

unable to develop resistance to phage or

other antimicrobials.

Temperate phages

and can transfer

genes between

bacteria.

Phages have two life cycles, virulent

(lytic) and temperate (lysogenic). For

phage therapies only obligately virulent

phages are used that do not possess toxin

or antibiotic resistance genes or virulent

factors. They kill the host bacteria.

Low inherent

toxicity and low

environmental

impact.

Phages are protein-encapsulated nucleic

acids thus are inherently nontoxic to

plant, animal or environment.

May interact with

the immune

response.

There is little evidence of detrimental

immune responses from phage

themselves. However it is crucial that

protocols are developed resulting in

highly purified preparations to avoid

contamination with bacterial components.

Administration of

phages can be oral,

aerosols,

immersion,

injection, in feed or

topically.

Phage preparations can be made into

tablets, liquid or powder and can be

viable for many years in some

preparations.

Diseased animals

may not feed.

Injections of large

numbers of animals

(e.g. fish) may be

problematic.

Phage released into the water from

uneaten treated feed can also act as an

immersion treatment. Advancements in

vaccine delivery technologies offer

relevant methods for vaccination of large

numbers of animals.

Selecting new

phages is a

relatively rapid and

cost effective

process.

Evolutionary arguments support the idea

that virulent phages can be selected

against every antibiotic-resistant or phage

resistant bacterium by the ever-ongoing

process of natural selection.

Strictly virulent

phages only must be

selected and

purified.

Advances in molecular biology and phage

biology have reduced the time and cost to

select for virulent phage.

Replicate at the site

of infection, ‘auto

dosing’.

The exponential growth of phages at the

site of infection may require less frequent

phage administration in order to achieve

the optimal therapeutic effect.

.

Bacteria that have

become resistant to

one phage continue

to be susceptible to

other phages.

Selecting new phages is a relatively rapid

and cost effective process. The

development of phage cocktails

significantly reduces the appearance of

phage resistant bacteria.

Page 5: Bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture   friend or foe

[email protected]

Phages are active

against antibiotic

resistant bacteria.

Phages do not contribute to antibiotic

resistance and possess different receptors

to antibiotics.

With advances in technologies and better understanding of bacteriophage biology, these challenges can all be

addressed. For example, virulent phages are very good candidates for phage therapy, whereas temperate phages are not.

With rigorous testing, favorable virulent phages can be selected and safe phage preparations for therapeutic use can be

developed. It is crucial that the perceived challenges associated with phage therapy do not impede the advancement of

this technology in the Western world.

The use of phage products in the food industry, human medicine, agriculture and aquaculture has gathered momentum

recently. A range of products have been approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), US Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and FSANZ (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand) for the control of Listeria

monocytogenes, Salmonella, pathogenic E. coli and Pseudomonas putida. This is primarily due to the increase in MDR

bacteria, antimicrobial and chemical residues in food and the environment, and the decline in research to develop new

antibiotics. An increased understanding of phage biology, a long history as therapeutics and an urgent need, as defined

by the above agencies, to find alternatives to overcome antibiotic resistance in traditional medicine have also aided in

the acceptance of bacteriophage products in the human food chain. This is evidence of the gathering acceptance of

phage as alternative antibacterial treatments.

Bacteriophage Therapy in Aquaculture

The use of bacteriophage in aquaculture has recently been reviewed with a recommendation for further research in this

area due to its positive therapeutic potential (Oliveira et al., 2012). The therapeutic potential for the use of phage in the

control of bacterial disease in aquaculture has been reported for finfish (Park et al., 2000; Nakai and Park, 2002; Park

and Nakai, 2003)) and prawns (Vinod et al., 2006; Karunasagar et al., 2007) with promising results. However the vast

majority of publications focus on isolating and characterizing phage capable of reducing the biomass of bacterial

pathogens associated with aquaculture species in vitro. There is an urgent need for studies to be undertaken in vivo to

fully prove the advantages of using phage therapy as a control measure for antibiotic resistance organisms in particular.

For nearly a decade, we have played a major role in the development and testing of phage preparations in aquaculture

systems and animals with outstanding results. In 2008, a project was undertaken in collaboration with James Cook

University, Australia (Elliott and Owens, 2008) to develop a phage preparation able to reduce the biomass of

pathogenic V. harveyi. A total of 17 virulent phages were isolated, purified and tested against greater than 100 different

Vibrio strains, with a combined phage susceptibility of 77% of bacterial strains. Several phage cocktails were prepared

and toxicology trials were undertaken using Penaeus monodon postlarvae (PL5) under controlled laboratory conditions.

The trial was conducted over 5 days with no significant unfavorable affects on survival reported.

In response to a disease outbreak in 2010 caused by Streptococcus agalactiae in Central America, eight virulent phages

were isolated and purified with 80% of the S. agalactiae strains susceptible to the phage preparation (Elliott, 2010).

More recently (2013), as part of a preceding project conducted by James Cook University Townsville, we report on the

successful use of bacteriophage therapy in the control of pathogenic Aeromonas hydrophila in a Redclaw crayfish

hatchery (Elliott and Valverde, 2013).

Redclaw crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus) farming in Australia has typically been classified as ‘extensive’ rather than

‘intensive’ farming and the industry has not grown over the past several years. In recent years an Australian farmer

adapted an egg incubation process from Europe and developed a Redclaw hatchery process that has enabled a high level

of control over the life cycle of C. quadricarinatus. This has opened many new possibilities and is dramatically

changing the face of the Redclaw industry in Australia. Grow-out farmers are now able to stock selectively breed

animals with exceptional health status of exact quantities of the same life stage. The results of this have shown an

increase in grow-out production of up to 30% (per com) and, as the industry gains experience in using “craylings” from

the hatchery, expectations are that production will continue to increase.

Whilst major progress in hatchery techniques has been achieved, sporadic bacterial infections suspected as Aeromonas

hydrophila, resulted in mortalities in the order of 80-90% in Stage 2 larvae (S2L). With a substantial increase in

demand for hatchery reared "craylings" disease management in the hatchery has become crucial. To address this

problem and provide a natural antibiotic alternative, a bacteriophage therapy was developed and trialed in vivo over a

full hatchery season (approximately 4 months).

Page 6: Bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture   friend or foe

[email protected]

Samples were obtained from various locations within the hatchery and the pathogen was confirmed as A. hydrophila.

Several phages were isolated, purified and tested against the pathogen using techniques suitable for the selection of

virulent phage. A bacteriophage preparation was prepared and used to treat the incubators, twice daily over the course

of the hatchery season.

Within 1 week a dramatic decrease in mortalities from greater than 80% to less than 5% of S2L was noted. In addition

to this, the biofilm growing on the internal surfaces of the incubators making cleaning difficult, was considerably

reduced making the system more efficient. Continued treatment over the course of the hatchery season resulted in a

constant survival rate of >80% and the pathogen remained under control. The hatchery is now able to produce at full

capacity without bacterial impediments.

The use of a bacteriophage preparation offered an effective antibiotic alternative treatment in a commercial setting

resulting in a survival improvement of >80%. With much research yet to be undertaken by the Redclaw industry in a

variety of areas including disease, nutrition and genetics to name a few, the ability to control specific pathogens so these

research areas can be successfully undertaken is fundamental. The ability to control disease in the hatchery and thus

increase the numbers of healthy "craylings" available to the industry will enable the industry to grow beyond the current

‘extensive’ farming practices

This project was in response to an emergency disease outbreak and therefore, full on-farm scientific rigor was not

applied i.e. no replication or control groups. The bacteriophages used in this study were isolated, purified, screened for

virulent phage only, and all phage not meeting the selection criteria appropriate for phage therapy as described above

were excluded. The preliminary results achieved from this short trial has facilitated government funding and a full

research project aimed at fully investigating the use of phage therapy in the control of bacterial infections in Redclaw

hatcheries is due to begin in 2014.

Conclusions

There is no doubt that sustainable aquaculture production is crucial to the future demands for seafood globally.

However, one of the biggest threats to the aquaculture industry is infectious disease. Whilst fish vaccinology has shown

remarkable developments in recent years, and major improvements have been made in good management practices, the

emergence of antimicrobial resistant bacteria has become a global problem. The consequences associated with these

infections are widespread and have a significant impact on the economy, livelihood, health and welfare (human and

animal) of entire communities and countries. The World Health Organization (2014) states, “Increasingly, governments

around the world are beginning to pay attention to a problem so serious that it threatens the achievements of modern

medicine. A post-antibiotic era—in which common infections and minor injuries can kill – far from being an

apocalyptic fantasy, is instead a very real possibility for the 21st century.”

Bacteriophage have been investigated, tested and extensively used in human and animal medicine for more than 60

years in Europe. Although early studies were often inconclusive, modern technology, methods and a greater

understanding of phage and pathogen biology have provided an excellent basis for development of improved

preparations, overcoming many of the perceived disadvantages of phage therapy. Virulent phages are natural,

sustainable antimicrobials that are nontoxic and, when correctly selected and prepared, do not pose any risk to plant,

animal or the environment. Future research and development of bacteriophage preparations as therapies will contribute

to environmental, social and economical sustainability in global aquaculture and should be fully embraced and

supported by government, researchers and farmers.

Page 7: Bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture   friend or foe

[email protected]

Abedon, S.T. 2011. Bacteriophages and Biofilms In: Bailey, W.C. (Ed.) Biofilms: Formation, Development and

Properties. Nova Publishers, Hauppauge NY 1-58.

Agnew, W., Barnes, A.C., 2007. Streptococcus Iniae: An Aquatic Pathogen of Global Veterinary Significance and a

Challenging Candidate for Reliable Vaccination. Veterinary Microbiology 122, 1-15.

Alagappan, K.M., Deivasigamani, B., Balamurugan, S., 2013. Occurrences of Pathogenic Vibrio Parahaemolyticus

from Vellar Estuary and Shrimp Ponds. African Journal of Biotechnology 12, 1624-1629.

Bromage, E.S., Thomas, A., Owens, L., 1999. Streptococcus Iniae, a Bacterial Infection in Barramundi Lates Calcarifer.

Dis Aquat Organ 36, 177-181.

Carlton, R., 1999. Phage Therapy Past History and Future Prospects. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae

Experimentalis 47, 267-274.

Chanishvili, N., 2012. A Literature Review of the Practical Application of Bacteriophage Research. Nova Science

Publishers, New York, 283 p.

Chatterjee, S., Haldar, S., 2012. Vibrio Related Diseases in Aquaculture and Development of Rapid and Accurate

Identification Methods. Journal of Marine Science, Research and Development S1:002, 1-7.

Congress, U. 2011. H.R.965 (112th): Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2011. 112th Congress,

2011-2013. In 112th Congress, 2011-2013 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr965ih/pdf/BILLS-

112hr965ih.pdf, Publishing Govtrack Web).

Elliott, L. 2010. Isolation and Purification of Virulent Bacteriophage to Reduce Streptococcus Agalactiae Biomass

(Unpublished, Proaqua Pty Ltd).

Elliott, L., Owens, L. 2008. Development of a Bacteriophage Therapy for the Biocontrol of Luminescent Vibrio

Harveyi in Prawn Hatcheries (Unpublished, James Cook University and Proaqua Pty Ltd).

Elliott, L., Valverde, C. 2013. Successful Bacteriophage Therapy in the Control of Aeromonas Hydrophila Infection in

Redclaw Crayfish (Cherax Quadricarinatus) (Unpublished).

Ellis, E.L., Delbruck, M., 1938. The Growth of Bacteriophage. The Journal of General Physiology, 365-384.

FAO. 2005. Fao 2005-2014 Fisheries & Aquaculture - Fish Health Management in Aquaculture., In: Subasinghe, R.

(Ed.) Fao Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (Online). FAO, Rome.

FAO 2014. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. In Opportunities and challenges (Rome, Food and

Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations).

Frieden, T. 2013. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013

(http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf, CDC

Publishing).

Gill, J.J., Hyman, P., 2010. Phage Choice, Isolation, and Preparation for Phage Therapy. Current Pharmaceutical

Biotechnology 11, 2-14.

Gudding, R., Van Muiswinkel, W.B., 2013. A History of Fish Vaccination: Science-Based Disease Prevention in

Aquaculture. Fish Shellfish Immunol 35, 1683-1688.

Haenen, O.L.M., Evans, J.J., Berthe, F., 2013. Bacterial Infections from Aquatic Species- Potential for and Prevention

of Contact Zoonoses. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties 32, 497-507.

Haq, I.U., Chaudhry, W.N., Akhtar, M.N., Andleeb, S., Qadri, I., 2012. Bacteriophages and Their Implications on

Future Biotechnology: A Review. Virol J 9, 9.

Holvold, L.B., Myhr, A.I., Dalmo, R.A., 2014. Strategies and Hurdles Using DNA Vaccines to Fish. Veterinary

Research 45.

Karunasagar, I., Shivu, M.M., Girisha, S.K., Krohne, G., Karunasagar, I., 2007. Biocontrol of Pathogens in Shrimp

Hatcheries Using Bacteriophages. Aquaculture 268, 288-292.

Kumaran, S., Deivasigamani, B., Alagappan, K.M., Sakthivel, M., Guru Prasad, S., 2010. Isolation and Characterization

of Pseudomonas Sp. Kums3 from Asian Sea Bass (Lates Calcarifer) with Fin Rot. World Journal of

Microbiology and Biotechnology 26, 359-363.

Kutter, E., De Vos, D., Gvasalia, G., Alavidze, Z., Gogokhia, L., Kuhl, S.J., Abedon, S.T., 2010. Phage Therapy in

Clinical Practice- Treatment of Human Infections. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology 11, 69-86.

Kutter, E., Sulakvelidze, A., 2005. Bacteriophages: Biology and Applications. CRCn Press, Florida, 528 p.

Lahav, D., Eyngor, M., Hurvitz, A., Ghittino, C., Lublin, A., Eldar, A., 2004. Streptococcus Iniae Type Ii Infections in

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus Mykiss. Dis Aquat Organ 62, 177-180.

Leung, T.L.F., Bates, A.E., Dulvy, N., 2013. More Rapid and Severe Disease Outbreaks for Aquaculture at the Tropics:

Implications for Food Security. Journal of Applied Ecology 50, 215-222.

Lindberg, A.A., 1973. Bacteriophage Receptors. Annual Review of Microbiology 27, 205-241.

Loc-Carrillo, C., Abedon, S.T., 2011. Pros and Cons of Phage Therapy. Bacteriophage 1, 111-114.

Nakai, T., Park, S.C., 2002. Bacteriophage Therapy of Infectious Diseases in Aquaculture. Researc h in Microbiology

153, 13-18.

Page 8: Bacteriophage therapy in aquaculture   friend or foe

[email protected]

Nielsen, M.E., Hoi, L., Schmidt, A.S., Qian, D., Shimada, T., Shen, J.Y., Larsen, J.L., 2001. Is Aeromonas Hydrophila

the Dominant Motile Aeromonas Species That Causes Disease Outbreaks in Aquaculture Production in the

Zhejiang Province of China? Dis Aquat Organ 46, 23-29.

Noriega-Orozoo, L., Acedo-Felix, E., Higuera-Ciapara, I., Jimenez-Flores, R., Cano, R., 2007. Pathogenic and Non

Pathogenic Vibrio Species in Aquacuture Shrimp Ponds. Rev Latinoam Microbiol 49, 60-67.

OIE 2011. Proceeding of the Oie Global Conference on Aquatic Animal Health 2011. In Aquatic Animal Health

Programs: their benifits for global food security (France).

OIE 2014. 2015 Oie Global Conference on Aquatic Animal Health: ‘Riding the Wave to the Future’

(http://www.oie.int/en/for-the-media/press-releases/detail/article/2015-oie-global-conference-on-aquatic-animal-health-riding-the-wave-to-the-future/, OIE).

Oliveira, J., Castilho, F., Cunha, A., Pereira, M.J., 2012. Bacteriophage Therapy as a Bacterial Control Strategy in

Aquaculture. Aquaculture International 20, 879-910.

Ormala, A.M., Jalasvuori, M., 2013. Phage Therapy: Should Bacterial Resistance to Phages Be a Concern, Even in the

Long Run? Bacteriophage 3, e24219.

Park, S.C., Nakai, T., 2003. Bacteriophage Control of Pseudomonas Plecoglossicida Infection in Ayu Plecoglossus

Altivelis. Dis Aquat Organ 53, 33-39.

Park, S.C., Shimamura, I., Fukunaga, M., Mori, K.I., Nakai, T., 2000. Isolation of Bacteriophages Specific to a Fish

Pathogen, Pseudomonas Plecoglossicida, as a Candidate for Disease Control. Appl Environ Microbiol 66,

1416-1422.

Park, Y.K., Nho, S.W., Shin, G.W., Park, S.B., Jang, H.B., Cha, I.S., Ha, M.A., Kim, Y.R., Dalvi, R.S., Kang, B.J.,

Jung, T.S., 2009. Antibiotic Susceptibility and Resistance of Streptococcus Iniae and Streptococcus Parauberis

Isolated from Olive Flounder (Paralichthys Olivaceus). Vet Microbiol 136, 76-81.

Rowley, A.F., Pope, E.C., 2012. Vaccines and Crustacean Aquaculture—a Mechanistic Exploration. Aquaculture 334-

337, 1-11.

Shayo, S.D., Mwita, C.J., Hosea, K.M., 2012. Virulence of Pseudomonas and Aeromonas Bacteria Recovered from

Oreochromis Niloticus (Perege) from Mtera Hydropower Dam; Tanzania. Annals of Biological Research 3,

5157-5161.

Skurnik, M., Strauch, E., 2006. Phage Therapy: Facts and Fiction. Int J Med Microbiol 296, 5-14.

Sulakvelidze, A. 2011. Saftey by Nature: Potential Bacteriophage Applications. In Microbe (online, American Society

for Microbiology).

Sulakvelidze, A., Alavidze, Z., Morris, J.G., Jr., 2001. Bacteriophage Therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 45, 649-

659.

Tran, L., Nunan, L., Redman, R.M., Mohney, L.L., Pantoja, C.R., Fitzsimmons, K., Lightner, D.V., 2013.

Determination of the Infectious Nature of the Agent of Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Syndrome Affecting

Penaeid Shrimp. Dis Aquat Organ 105, 45-55.

Vinod, M.G., Shivu, M.M., Umesha, K.R., Rajeeva, B.C., Krohne, G., Karunasagar, I., Karunasagar, I., 2006. Isolation

of Vibrio Harveyi Bacteriophage with a Potential for Biocontrol of Luminous Vibriosis in Hatchery

Environments. Aquaculture 255, 117-124.

WHO 1999. Food Safety Issues Associated with Products from Aquaculture, WHO, ed. (Geneva).

WHO 2014. Anitimicrobial Resistance. In Global report on surveillance (Geneva, WHO).