Skip to main content
Log in

Immunological effects of glucan and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, a probiotic bacterium, on Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus intestine with oral Aeromonas challenges

  • Original Article
  • Aquaculture
  • Published:
Fisheries Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study histologically examined the effects of glucan-containing and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG)-containing diets on intestinal damages inflicted on Nile tilapia by Aeromonas challenges. Tilapia were fed control, glucan, and LGG diets for 2 weeks and were subsequently challenged with Aeromonas. The intestines were then histologically examined at 1, 7, 14, and 21 days post-infection. Mortality following the challenge was lower for the fish fed the glucan and LGG diets. The intestines of these groups also showed increased inflammatory cell infiltration and reduced intestinal damage from Aeromonas. Moreover, inflammatory cell infiltration occurred more rapidly in the glucan-fed than in the LGG-fed fish following the challenge. Before the challenge, the dominant mucous cell was the acid type in all the tests. After the challenge, the main mucus cell type in the proximal intestine of the glucan-fed fish shifted to AB-PAS double-staining cells, while in the LGG-fed fish, it remained the acid type throughout the test period, and the number of double-staining cells was smaller than in the control fish after the challenge. Thus, the different mucous cell and inflammatory cell responses show that glucan and LGG might have different immunostimulative effects, although they both reduced the intestinal damage following Aeromonas challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cahill MM (1990) Virulence factors in motile Aeromonas species. J Appl Bacteriol 69:1–16

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bricknell I, Dalmo RA (2005) The use of immunostimulants in fish larval aquaculture. Fish Shellfish Immunol 19:457–472

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson DP (1992) Immunostimulants, adjuvants, and vaccine carriers in fish: applications to aquaculture. Annu Rev Fish Dis 2:281–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sakai M (1999) Current research status of fish immunostimulants. Aquaculture 172:63–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dalmo RA, Bøgwald J (2008) β-glucans as conductors of immune symphonies. Fish Shellfish Immunol 25:384–396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kumari J, Sahoo PK (2006) Dietary β-1,3 glucan potentiates innate immunity and disease resistance of Asian catfish Clarias batrachus (L.). J Fish Dis 29:95–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ortuno J, Cuesta A, Rodríguez A, Esteban MA, Mesegure J (2002) Oral administration of yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, enhances the cellular innate immune response of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.). Vet Immunol Immunopathol 85:41–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Robertsen B (1999) Modulation of the non-specific defence of fish by structurally conserved microbial polymers. Fish Shellfish Immunol 9:269–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Selvaraj V, Sampath K, Sekar V (2005) Administration of yeast glucan enhances survival and some non-specific and specific immune parameters in carp (Cyprinus carpio) infected with Aeromonas hydrophila. Fish Shellfish Immunol 19:293–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bridle AR, Carter CG, Morrison RN, Nowak BF (2005) The effect of β-glucan administration on macrophage respiratory burst activity and Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., challenged with amoebic gill disease–evidence of inherent resistance. J Fish Dis 28:347–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ai Q, Mai K, Zhang L, Tan B, Zhang W, Xu W, Li H (2007) Effects of dietary β-1,3 glucan on innate immune response of large yellow croaker, Pseudosciaena crocea. Fish Shellfish Immunol 22:394–402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Irianto A, Austin B (2002) Probiotics in aquaculture. J Fish Dis 25:633–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Anuradha S, Rajeshwari K (2005) Probiotics in health and disease. J Indian Acad Clin Med 6(1):67–72

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bols NC, Brubacher JL, Ganassin RC, Lee LEJ (2001) Ecotoxicology and innate immunity in fish. Dev Comp Immunol 25:853–873

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ellis AE (2001) Innate host defense mechanisms of fish against viruses and bacteria. Dev Comp Immunol 25:827–839

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Subramanian S, MacKinnon SL, Ross NW (2007) A comparative study on innate immune parameters in the epidermal mucus of various fish species. Comp Biochem Physiol Part B 148:256–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shimizu T, Hirano H, Shimizu S, Kishioka C, Sakakura Y, Majima Y (2001) Differential properties of mucous glycoproteins in rat nasal epithelium: a comparison between allergic inflammation and lipopolysaccharide stimulation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 164:1077–1082

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Theodoropoulos G, Carraway KL (2007) Molecular signaling in the regulation of mucins. J Cell Biochem 102:1103–1116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu YM, Nowack DD, Omenn GS, Haab BB (2009) Mucin glycosylation is altered by pro-inflammatory signaling in pancreatic-cancer cells. J Proteome Res 8:1876–1886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Humason GL (1972) Animal tissue techniques, 3rd edn. W.H Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sabóia-Moraes SMT, Hernandez-Blazquez FJ, Mota DL, Bittencourt AM (1996) Mucous cell types in the branchial epithelium of the euryhaline fish Poecilia vivipara. J Fish Biol 49:545–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Han HJ (2006) Characterization of virulence related genes of motile Aeromonas. PhD dissertation, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo

  23. Manjili MH, France MP, Sangster NC, Rothwell TLW (1998) Quantitative and qualitative changes in intestinal goblet cells during primary infection of Trichostrongylus colubriformis high and low responder guinea pigs. Int J Parasitol 28:761–765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Balcázar JL, de Blas I, Ruiz-Zarzuela I, Vendrell D, Gironés O, Muzquiz JL (2007) Enhancement of the immune response and protection induced by probiotic lactic acid bacteria against furunculosis in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 51:185–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Matsuzaki T, Chin J (2000) Modulating immune responses with probiotic bacteria. Immunol Cell Biol 78:67–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Asian CORE Program and by a Grant-in-Aid from the JSPS (20580199).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayuki Katagiri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ngamkala, S., Futami, K., Endo, M. et al. Immunological effects of glucan and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, a probiotic bacterium, on Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus intestine with oral Aeromonas challenges. Fish Sci 76, 833–840 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-010-0280-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-010-0280-0

Keywords

Navigation