4.5 Article

Comparative effects of four feed types on white spot disease susceptibility and skin immune parameters in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum)

期刊

JOURNAL OF FISH DISEASES
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 127-135

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2761.2011.01329.x

关键词

Ichthyophthirius multifiliis; immune gene expression; infection; lysozyme activity; mucous cell density; rainbow trout

资金

  1. Biomar A/S, Brande, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects on rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), immune parameters by differently formulated fish feed types containing immunostimulants have been tested in a double-blind, duplicated and controlled study performed over 50 days. A total of 800 rainbow trout (1012 g) were kept in eight duplicate fish tanks (each containing 100 fish) and fed at a daily feeding rate of 1.5% of the biomass. The feed types were (1) control feed (C) without additives, (2) feed containing beta-glucan, nucleotides, manno-oligosaccharides (MOS), vitamins C and E (GNMCE), (3) feed containing probiotic bacteria and plant extracts (PP) and (4) feed with nucleotides, manno-oligosaccharides, vitamins C and E (NMCE). Plasma lysozyme activity was increased in fish fed two feed types (GNMCE and NMCE) but slightly depressed in fish fed PP. A non-significant trend for a higher mucous cell density at days 30 and 50 was shown in all fish receiving feeds with additives compared to the control group. All fish became infected with Ichthyophthirius multifiliis when exposed, but fish fed GNMCE showed a significantly lower infection both at days 30 and 50. Expression of genes encoding C3 and MHCII was significantly up-regulated in fish fed GNMCE for 50 days, and the expression of genes coding Hepcidin was significantly down-regulated in fish fed NMCE for 50 days. Beta-glucan was the single component, when used in combination with other feed ingredients, which was found associated with increased parasite resistance, increased lysozyme and immune gene up-regulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据