RESUMO
Piscirickettsia salmonis, the primary bacterial disease in Chilean salmon farming, necessitates a constant refinement of control strategies. This study hypothesized that the current vaccination strategy for SRS control in the Chilean Atlantic salmon aquaculture industry, which has been in place since 2017 (ALPHA JECT® 5.1 plus LiVac®), solely relies on vaccines formulated with the EM-90 genogroup of P. salmonis (PS-EM-90), triggering a partial cross-immunity response in fish infected with the LF-89 genogroup (PS-LF-89). Relative Percent Survival (RPS) and cell-mediated immune (CMI) response were evaluated in Atlantic salmon post-smolts vaccinated with the standard vaccination strategy but challenged with both PS-EM-90 and PS-LF-89, in addition to other vaccination strategies considering primo vaccination and booster with other commercial vaccines and the possible enhancing effects of the combination with a natural immunomodulator (PAQ-Xtract®) administered orally. The intraperitoneal (I.P.) challenge was performed after 2395°-days (DD) after the start of the immunostimulant delivery, 1905 DD after the primo vaccination, and 1455 DD after the booster vaccination. Unvaccinated fish showed 73.6 and 41.7 % mortality when challenged with PS-EM-90 and PS-LF-89, respectively. Fish infected with PS-LF-89 died significantly faster (21 days post-infection, dpi) than fish challenged with PS-EM-90 (28 dpi) (p = 0.0043) and had a higher probability of death (0.4626) than fish challenged with PS-EM-90. RPS had a significant positive correlation with the PS-EM-90 load of the P. salmonis genogroup (r = 0.540, p < 0.01) but not with the PS-LF-89 load (r = 0.155, p > 0.05). This demonstrated that the immunization strategies were more effective in lowering PS-EM-90 loads, resulting in higher survival rates in fish challenged with PS-EM-90. The current industry vaccination strategy recorded a 100 % RPS when fish were challenged with PS-EM-90, but the RPS dropped significantly to 77 % when fish were challenged with PS-LF-89, meaning that the strategy did not show complete cross-protection. But after adding PAQ-Xtract®, the RPS improved from 77 % to 92 % in fish that were vaccinated with the standard method but then challenged with PS-LF-89. The most effective vaccination strategy was based on LiVac® as primo vaccination and ALPHA JECT® 5.1 plus LiVac® as booster vaccination, with or without PAQ-Xtract®, in both PS-EM-90 (100 %) and PS-LF-89 (96 %) challenged fish. The serum concentration of anti-P. salmonis IgM did not show a correlation with the protection of immunization strategies expressed in survival. Low serum IL-12 and high serum IFNγ concentrations showed a correlation with higher bacterial loads and lower survival. Aggregate analysis showed a significant correlation between higher numbers of CD8+ cells in the head-kidney, higher fish survival, and a lower bacterial load. The immunization strategies were safe for fish and induced only mild microscopic lesions in the gut. Taken together, our results help to better understand the biological interaction between P. salmonis and post-smolt vaccinated Atlantic salmon to deepen the knowledge on vaccine-induced protection, CMI immune response, and cross-immunity applied to improve the current immunization strategy for SRS control in the Chilean salmon industry.
RESUMO
Five bovines immunized against the toxicity of the seeds of Abrus precatorius L. (jequiriti bean) did not get poisoned or only slightly so when the seeds of Ricinus communis L. (castor bean) were given in amounts that in bovines, which never before ingested the seeds of A. precatorius or R. communis, caused moderate to severe poisoning or even death. A sixth bovine, which was not well immunized against the toxic action of the seeds of A. precatorius, was severely poisoned when given a high dose of the seeds of R. communis. On the other side, from five bovines immunized against the toxic action of the seeds of R. communis four were severely poisoned and the fifth one moderately when the seeds of A. precatorius were given in doses that in bovines, which never before ingested seeds of R. communis or A. precatorius, caused slight to severe poisoning. It is concluded that bovines immunized against the toxic action of the seeds of A. precatorius are resistant to the toxic action of the seeds of R. communis, but that the contrary is not the case; this is, bovines immunized against the toxic action of the seeds of R. communis were not protected against the poisoning by A. precatorius. Earlier studies by other authors had shown that the toxalbumins of the seeds of A. precatorius and R. communis, respectively abrin and ricin, are different as to their antigenic properties. A possible explanation for the difference in results can be.that in the present study polygastric animals were used which received the seeds orally, but in the earlier studies monogastric animals received the seeds or toxins by parenteral route. The administration of the fresh leaves or the pericarp of the fruits R. communis to bovines, which had been immunized against the action of the seeds of the plant, had the same toxic effect as to not immunized animals, showing that the immunity due to ricin does not give protection against the action of ricinin, the toxic principle of the leaves and the pericarp.
Cinco bovinos imunizados contra a ação tóxica das sementes de Abrus precatorius L. ("tento", "jiquiriti") não adoeceram ou somente levemente pela administração das sementes de Ricinus communis L. ("mamona"), em doses que em bovinos que antes nunca ingeriram sementes de A. precatorius ou R. communis, causaram intoxicação de intensidade de grau moderado a acentuado ou até a morte. Um sexto bovino, que não ficou bem imunizado contra a ação tóxica das sementes de A. precatorius, adoeceu em grau acentuado pela administração de dose elevada das sementes de R. communis. Já dos cinco bovinos imunizados contra a ação tóxica das sementes de R. communis quatro adoeceram em grau acentuado, oquinto em grau moderado, pela administração das sementes de A. precatorias em doses que em bovinos que antes nunca ingeriram sementes de R. communis ou A. precatorius causaram intoxicação de intensidade leve a acentuada. Estes resultados permitem concluir que bovinos imunizados contra a ação tóxica das sementes de A. precatorius são resistentes à ação tóxica das sementes de R. communis, mas que o contrário não ocorre, isto é, bovinos imunizados contra a ação tóxica das sementes de R. communis, não se mostraram protegidos contra a intoxicação por A. precatorius. Estudos anteriores por outros autores mostraram que as toxalbuminas de A. precatorius e R. communis, respectivamente abrina e ricina, são diferentes do ponto de vista antigênico. Uma explicação para a divergência desses resultados com os nossos poderia estar no fato de que no presente estudo foram usados poligástricos que receberam as sementes por via oral, enquanto que nos estudos anteriores foram usados monogástricos em que as sementes ou as toxinas foram aplicadas por via parenteral. A administração de folhas frescas ou do pericarpo do fruto de R. communis a bovinos imunizados contra a ação das sementes desta planta tiveram o mesmo efeito tóxico que em animais não imunizados, demonstrando que a imunidade conferida pela ricina não inibe a ação da ricinina, o principio tóxico das folhas e do pericarpo.