Pseudomonas aeruginosa FARP72 Offers Protection Against Aeromonas hydrophila Infection in Labeo rohita
Use of probiotics as the biocontrol agent for disease prevention in aquaculture is gaining importance as an alternative to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and other chemotherapeutics. In view of this trend, the probiotic properties of a potent antagonistic bacterium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa FARP72, was characterized in terms of safety, antagonistic activities, in vitro immunomodulation, and in vivo disease resistance. Immunomodulatory activity was ascertained by measuring the production of intracellular superoxide anion, nitric oxide, total leukocyte peroxidase content, and the leukocyte proliferation in head kidney leukocytes. The bacterium isolated from the skin mucus of freshwater catfish Clarias batrachus was harmless to Labeo rohita. It showed inhibitory activity against Aeromonas caviae, A. hydrophila, Edwardsiella tarda, Pseudomonas putida, and Streptococcus agalactiae as revealed by cross and parallel streaking methods. Significantly higher superoxide anion and nitric oxide production, peroxidase content, and proliferative responses of leucocytes delineated the strains’ ability to interact with immune cells to activate the immune system in vitro. Significant growth inhibition of A. hydrophila from 1.55 × 105 CFU/mL was observed when co-cultured with P. aeruginosa FARP72 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at levels ranging from 2.61 × 107 to 2.61 × 109 CFU/mL in 10 days. P. aeruginosa FARP72 increased the survival rate of rohu fingerlings against pathogenic A. hydrophila challenge in biocontrol study in vivo as determined by cohabitation challenge. These results suggest that P. aeruginosa FARP72 is a potential probiotic strain and can be used in aquaculture to improve the health status and disease resistance of fish.
KeywordsLabeo rohita Aeromonas hydrophila Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biocontrol Probiotics
The authors thank the Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata for providing necessary infrastructure facility to carry out the work.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All authors of this paper have read and approved the final version submitted. The contents of this manuscript have not been copyrighted or published previously.
1. The contents of this manuscript are not now under consideration for publication elsewhere.
2. The contents of this manuscript will not be copyrighted, submitted, or published elsewhere, while acceptance by the Journal is under consideration.
3. Use of laboratory animals (fish) in the present study has complied with the guidelines and policies of the ethical committee of the Institute.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. https://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e00.htm., 2012
- 2.Austin B, Austin DA (2012) Bacterial fish pathogens: disease of farmed and wild fish, 5th edn. ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 9.Vijayan KK, Bright IS, Jayaprakas NS, Alavandi SV, Somnath Pai S, Preetha R, Rajan JJS, Santiago TC (2005) A brackishwater isolate of Pseudomonas PS-102, a potential antagonistic bacterium against pathogenic vibrios in penaeid and non-penaeid rearing systems. Aquaculture 251:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Giri SS, Sen SS, Sukumaran V (2012) Effects of dietary supplementation of potential probiotic Pseudomonas aeruginosa VSG-2 on the innate immunity and disease resistance of tropical freshwater fish, Labeo rohita. Fish Shellfish Immunol 26:245–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2012.03.019 Google Scholar
- 13.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) (2002) Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO working group on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0512e.pdf
- 14.Hoque F (2015) Screening and characterisation of antagonistic Pseudomonas aeruginosa FARP72 as a potential probiotic agent. Indian J Fish 62(4):80–90Google Scholar
- 15.Austin B, Baudet E, Stobie M (1992) Inhibition of bacterial fish pathogens by Tetraselmis suecica. J Fish Dis 15:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.1992.tb00636.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Gram L, Melchiorsen J, Spanggaard B, Huber I, Nielsen TF (1999) Inhibition of Vibrio anguillarum by Pseudomonas fluorescens AH2, a possible probiotic treatment of fish. Appl Environ Microbiol 65(3):969–973Google Scholar
- 18.Román L, Real F, Sorroza L, Padilla D, Acosta B, Grasso V, Bravo J, Acosta F (2012) The in vitro effect of probiotic Vagococcus fluvialis on the innate immune parameters of Sparus aurata and Dicentrarchus labrax. Fish Shellfish Immunol 33:1071–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2012.06.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kamilya D, Ghosh D, Bandyopadhyay S, Mal BC, Maiti TK (2006) In vitro effects of bovine lactoferrin, mushroom glucan and Abrus agglutinin on Indian major carp, catla (Catla catla) head kidney leukocytes. Aquaculture 253:130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.07.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Giri SS, Sukumaran V, Sen SS, Vinumonia J, Banu BN, Jena PK (2011) Antagonistic activity of cellular components of potential probiotic bacteria, isolated from the gut of Labeo rohita, against Aeromonas hydrophila. Fish Shellfish Immunol 3:214–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-011-9078-3 Google Scholar
- 28.Cazorla FM, Duckett SB, Bergstroem ET, Noreen S, Odijk R, Lugtenberg BJ, Thomas-Oates JE, Bloem-berg GV (2006) Biocontrol of Avocado dematophora root rot by antagonistic Pseudomonas fluorescens PCL1606 correlates with the production of 2-hexyl 5-propyl resorcinol. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 19:418–428. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-19-0418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Bentley R (1990) From antibiosis to antibiotics a brief account of early work. Biochemist 12(5):14–17Google Scholar
- 31.Salinas I, Díaz-Rosales P, Cuesta A, Meseguer J, Chabrillón M, Moriñigo MA, Esteban MA (2006) Effect of heat-inactivated fish and non-fish derived probiotics on the innate immune parameters of a teleost fish (Sparus aurata L.). Vet Immunol Immunopathol 111:279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2006.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Neumann NF, Fagan D, Belosevic M (1995) Macrophage activating factor (s) secreted by mitogen stimulated gold fish kidney leukocytes synergize with bacterial lypopolysaccharide to induce nitric oxide production in teleost macrophages. Dev Comp Immunol 19:473–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-305X(95)00032-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Abraham TJ, Babu CHS, Mondal S, Banerjee T (2007) Effects of dietary supplementation of commercial human probiotic and antibiotic on the growth rate and content of intestinal microflora in ornamental fishes. Bangladesh J Fish Res 11:57–63Google Scholar
- 37.Das A, Nakhro K, Chowdhury S, Kamilya D (2013) Effects of potential probiotic Bacillus amyloliquifaciens FPTB16 on systemic and cutaneous mucosal immune responses and disease resistance of catla (Catla catla). Fish Shellfish Immunol 35:1547–1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2013.08.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar