4.6 Review

Review on Immersion Vaccines for Fish: An Update 2019

Journal

MICROORGANISMS
Volume 7, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms7120627

Keywords

immersion vaccination; vaccines; fish; diseases; aquaculture

Categories

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway [237315, 239140]
  2. University of Tromso and Tromso Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immersion vaccines are used for a variety of aquacultured fish to protect against infectious diseases caused by bacteria and viruses. During immersion vaccination the antigens are taken up by the skin, gills or gut and processed by the immune system, where the resulting response may lead to protection. The lack of classical secondary responses following repeated immersion vaccination may partly be explained by the limited uptake of antigens by immersion compared to injection. Administration of vaccines depends on the size of the fish. In most cases, immersion vaccination is inferior to injection vaccination with regard to achieved protection. However, injection is problematic in small fish, and fry as small as 0.5 gram may be immersion vaccinated when they are considered adaptively immunocompetent. Inactivated vaccines are, in many cases, weakly immunogenic, resulting in low protection after immersion vaccination. Therefore, during recent years, several studies have focused on different ways to augment the efficacy of these vaccines. Examples are booster vaccination, administration of immunostimulants/adjuvants, pretreatment with low frequency ultrasound, use of live attenuated and DNA vaccines, preincubation in hyperosmotic solutions, percutaneous application of a multiple puncture instrument and application of more suitable inactivation chemicals. Electrostatic coating with positively charged chitosan to obtain mucoadhesive vaccines and a more efficient delivery of inactivated vaccines has also been successful.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available