Transfer of maternal immunity using a polyvalent vaccine and offspring protection in Nile tilapia, <i>Oreochromis niloticus</i>

Amrullah Amrullah; Wahidah Wahidah; Ardiansyah Ardiansyah; Indrayani Indrayani

doi:10.12688/f1000research.52932.1

Home Browse Transfer of maternal immunity using a polyvalent vaccine and offspring...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Transfer of maternal immunity using a polyvalent vaccine and offspring protection in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Amrullah Amrullah ¹, Wahidah Wahidah¹, Ardiansyah Ardiansyah¹, Indrayani Indrayani²

PUBLISHED 24 Sep 2021

Author details Author details

¹ Aquaculture, Pangkep State Polytechnic of Agriculture, Pangkep, South Sulawesi, 90655, Indonesia
² Agricultural Technology Education, Makassar State University, Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Amrullah Amrullah
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Wahidah Wahidah
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ardiansyah Ardiansyah
Roles: Data Curation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation

Indrayani Indrayani
Roles: Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition gateway.

Abstract

Background: Vaccination is an effective and alternative means of disease prevention, however, it cannot be conducted on the offspring of fish. For this process to take place, the transfer of maternal immunity must be implemented. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of transferring immunity from the broodstock to the offspring using a polyvalent vaccine against Aeromonas hydrophila, Streptococcus agalactiae, and Pseudomonas fluorescens in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus.
Methods: Nile tilapia broodstock, with an average weight of 203g (±SD 23 g) was injected with a vaccine used as a treatment. Example include A. hydrophila monovalent (MA), S. agalactiae monovalent (MS), P. fluorescens monovalent (MP), A. hydrophila and S. agalactiae bivalent (BAS), A. hydrophila and P. fluorescens bivalent (BAP), P. fluorescens and S. agalactiae bivalent (BPS), and A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens polyvalent vaccines (PAPS). While the control was fish that were injected with a PBS solution. The broodstock’s immune response was observed on the 7^th, 14^th, 21^st, and 28^th day, while the immune response and challenge test on the offspring was conducted on the 10^th, 20^th, 30^th, and 40^th day during the post-hatching period.
Result: The application of PAPS in broodstock could significantly induce the best immune response and immunity to multiple diseases compared to other treatments. The RPS of the PAPS was also higher than the other types of vaccines. This showed that the transfer of immunity from the broodstock to the Nile tilapia offspring could protect it against bacterial diseases such as A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens.
Conclusion: The application of PAPS A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, P. fluorescens vaccines increased the broodstock’s immune response and it was transferred to their offsprings. They were able to produce tilapia seeds that are immune to diseases caused by A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens.

Keywords

Aeromonas hydrophila, bivalent vaccine, monovalent vaccine, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Streptococcus agalactiae.

Corresponding author: Amrullah Amrullah

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia for funding this study through the 2019 National Strategic Research Scheme (No.: 004/PL.22.7.1/SP-PG/2019).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2021 Amrullah A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Amrullah A, Wahidah W, Ardiansyah A and Indrayani I. Transfer of maternal immunity using a polyvalent vaccine and offspring protection in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 10:966 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52932.1) First published: 24 Sep 2021, 10:966 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52932.1) Latest published: 10 Nov 2023, 10:966 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52932.4)

Introduction

Tilapia was originally considered to be more resistant to bacterial, parasitic, mycological, and viral diseases than other species of cultivated fish. However, they are found to be susceptible to bacterial and parasitic diseases¹, particularly during the offspring phase². Some of the diseases often found in tilapia in Indonesia include S. agalactiae, A. hydrophila and P. fluorescens.

Among the various methods of disease control, vaccination is one of the most effective ways, which is commonly used^3–6. The administration of vaccines is meant to produce antibodies that could improve the immunity of tilapia. Unfortunately, they could not be administered to their offspring because the organs that form the immune response are not yet fully developed, therefore they are unable to produce antibodies⁷.

An effective solution to the aforementioned issue is the application of maternal immunity transfer. This is the transfer of immunity from broodstock to offspring, by which immunoglobulins (Ig) are transferred through eggs⁸. Maternal immunity has been shown to improve the fish offspring’s immunity against pathogens in the early phases of their life^9–12.

This process is usually carried out using monovalent vaccines^13–16. However, a polyvalent vaccine would be more effective because it could control multiple diseases^17,18. Though the effectiveness has been known, the application of polyvalent vaccines through maternal immunity has not been extensively investigated, particularly in Nile tilapia (O. niloticus).

The transfer of maternal immunity using PAPS for S. agalactiae, Lactococcus garvieae, and Enterococcus faecalis has been studied by Abu-elala et al.,¹⁹ and three vaccine strains for S. agalactiae by Nurani et al.²⁰. The types of bacterial diseases studied in the aforementioned studies are very limited even though Nile tilapia often suffer from them in fish farms and hatcheries²¹. Besides being infected by S. agalactiae^15,20–23, Nile tilapia are often infected by A. hydrophila^21,22,24 and P. fluorescens^24,25 leading to high mortality, including in Indonesia. Therefore, this study aims to examine maternal immunity transfer using the vaccines for S. agalactiae, A. hydrophila, and P. fluorescens. It was expected that the broodstock could pass their immunity to their offspring, making them resistant to the three types of diseases (A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens bacteria), and also the production of tilapia offspring could also be increased. Furthermore, this study aims to determine the effectiveness of the transfer of immunity induced by PAPS against A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens from the Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) broodstock to their offspring and the protection against S. agalactiae, A. hydrophila, and P. fluorescens bacterial infections.

Methods

Experimental animal

Nile tilapia broodstock, obtained from the Ompo Inland Hatchery, Soppeng, Indonesia, with an average weight of 203g (±SD 23 g) was used as experimental animals. They were kept in spawning ponds and fed with pellets that have a protein content of 30% ad libitum in the mornings and afternoons. Also, 25% of the water was replaced daily. One week after the fish spawned, they were harvested and a large number of Nile tilapia broodstock at gonad developmental stage 2 were obtained.

Vaccine production

Pure isolates of the A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens bacteria were obtained from the Research and Development of Fish Disease Control Installation, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Depok, Indonesia. The vaccine tested was formalin-killed, whereby S. agalactiae and P. fluorescens were inactivated with 1% formalin while A. hydrophila was inactivated using 0.6% formalin.

Vaccine treatments and administration

The vaccine treatments consist of (1) a monovalent vaccine against A. hydrophila (MA), (2) a monovalent vaccine against P. fluorescens (MP), (3) a monovalent vaccine against S. agalactiae (MS), (4) a bivalent vaccine against A. hydrophila, P. fluorescens and (BAP), (5) a bivalent vaccine against A. hydrophila and S. agalactiae (BAS), (6) a bivalent vaccine against P. fluorescens and S. agalactiae (BPS), (7) a polyvalent vaccine against A. hydrophila, P. fluorescens and S. agalactiae (PAPS), and (8) the control, fish injected with PBS solution.

The vaccination method used was intramuscular (i.m.) and was administered at a dose of 0.4 mL/kg fish. After the fish were vaccinated, a booster with the same dose as the initial vaccination was later administered on the 7^th day. However, before being injected with the vaccines, they were first anesthetized using MS-222, Sigma.

The gonad developmental stage 2 fish post-vaccination were reared using 3x3 m cages and installed in dirt ponds. Furthermore, 20 broodstock were reared per cage, consisting of 15 females and five males. The fish were fed with pellets at a dose of 4%/day in the morning, at midday, and in the afternoon. The water was replaced daily at a rate of 20%/day. The fish would spawn after being reared for approximately 4 weeks.

Broodstock and larvae immune response

Following vaccinations, the fish’s immune response was observed on the 7^th, 14^th, 21^st, and 28^th day by collecting intramuscular blood samples. The immune response parameters were the antibody titer using the direct agglutination method²⁶, total leukocyte^20,22,27, phagocytic^28–30 and lysozyme activities^13,20,29,30.

Random blood sampling from the offspring was conducted on each treatment group on the 10^th, 20^th, 30^th, and 40^th day post-spawning period. Serum was collected by grinding the offspring in a tube with PBS-tween at a ratio of 4:1. It was then centrifuged at 6000 rpm for 5–10 minutes. Furthermore, the serum in the second layer of the centrifugation result was harvested and stored at 47°C for 30 minutes to inactivate the complements³¹. It was then stored for agglutination titer and lysozyme activity.

Challenge procedures

The offspring challenge test was conducted on the 10, 20, 30, and 40 days old during the post-hatching period. It was carried out by dividing the fish into 7 groups based on the type of vaccine administered plus one unvaccinated. The control was challenged with the three types of pathogenic bacteria, namely A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens.

This test was carried out by placing 20 offsprings into containers containing 4 liters of water and then they were immersed in water containing pathogenic bacteria at a dose of 2.1x10⁸ CFU/mL according to their relative treatments, each conducted triplicate. To observe the effectiveness of the vaccine, the relative percentage survival (RPS) was calculated^31,32 on the 14^th day post-challenge test.

Data analysis

The data for the specific and non-specific immune response and RPS were analyzed statistically and with Duncan’s test (IBM SPSS Statistic 21; Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Broodstock total leukocyte dan phagocytic activity post-vaccination

In general, the different types of vaccines at each period of post-vaccination had a significant effect (P<0.05) on the broodstock's total leukocyte (Figure 1), and phagocytic activity (Figure 2). The follow-up test showed that the fish vaccinated with PAPS had the highest total leukocyte and phagocytic activity, followed by those vaccinated with bivalent and monovalent vaccines.

Figure 1. Total leukocyte of tilapia broodstock after the vaccination with various types of vaccines (mean±SE).

M: monovalent, B: Bivalent, P: Polyvalent vaccine, A: A. hydrophila, S: S. agalactiae, P: P. fluorescens. Values with different superscripts a,b indicate that their corresponding means are significantly different (P<0.05) according to one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test.

Figure 2. The phagocytic activity in the tilapia broodstock after being vaccinated with the various types of vaccines (mean±SE).

M: monovalent, B: Bivalent, P: Polyvalent vaccine, A: A. hydrophila, S: S. agalactiae, P: P. fluorescens. Values with different superscripts a,b indicate that their corresponding means are significantly different (P<0.05) according to one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test.

Broodstock and offspring agglutination titers

The broodstock’s antibody (Table 1) increased, especially after the booster, except in the unvaccinated fish. After the peak, the broodstock’s immune response remained high up to day 28 even though there was a tendency for it to decrease. All the types of vaccines at each point in time had a significant effect (P<0.05) on the agglutination titer in the broodstock. The Duncan’s follow-up test showed that the vaccinated broodstock had a higher agglutination titer than the unvaccinated fishes. Also, the highest significant value was found in the vaccinated fishes with PAPS, followed by those vaccinated with the bivalent and monovalent vaccines.

Table 1. The agglutination titer in Nile tilapia broodstock after being vaccinated with various types of vaccines (mean±SE).

M: monovalent, B: Bivalent, P: Polyvalent vaccine, A: A. hydrophila, S: S. agalactiae, P: P. fluorescens. Values with different superscripts a,b indicate that their corresponding means are significantly different (P<0.05) according to one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test.

Type of vaccine	Day after vaccinated (day)
Type of vaccine	0	7	14	21	28
MA	1.67±0.33^a	2.00±0.00^a	3.33±0.33^a	3.67±0.3^bc	3.67±0.33^bc
MP	1.67±0.33^a	2.67±0.33^a	3.67±0.33^a	3.33±0.33^bc	3.33±0.33^b
MS	1.33±0.33^a	2.33±0.33^a	3.33±0.33^a	3.00±0.00^b	3.33±0.33^b
BAP	2.00±0.58^a	2.33±0.33^a	4.33±0.33^ab	4.33±0.33^c	4.67±0.33^bc
BAS	1.67±0.33^a	2.33±0.33^a	4.33±0.33^ab	4.33±0.33^c	4.33±0.88^bc
BPS	1.67±0.67^a	2.33±0.33^a	4.33±0.33^ab	4.33±0.33^c	5.00±0.58^c
PAPS	1.67±0.33^a	3.67±0.33^b	5.33±0.33^b	6.67±0.33^d	6.67±0.33^d
Control	1.67±0.33^a	1.67±0.33^a	1.33±0.33^a	1.33±0.33^a	1.67±0.33^a

Based on the effect of the vaccine on the broodstock’s immune response, the agglutination titer in the offspring from the vaccinated broodstock at ages 10, 20, 30, and 40 days was higher than unvaccinated (P<0.05). The follow-up test showed that PAPS was more effective in increasing the agglutination titer in the offspring than the bivalent and monovalent vaccines. The results showed that the administration of vaccines in tilapia broodstock had a significant effect on the maternal immunity transfer to the offsprings that were up to 30 days old (Table 2).

Table 2. The agglutination titer of tilapia offspring from maternal immunity produced by various types of vaccines at the ages of 10, 20, 30 and 40 days post-hatching (mean±SE).

M: monovalent, B: Bivalent, P: Polyvalent vaccine, A: A. hydrophila, S: S. agalactiae, P: P. fluorescens. Values with different superscripts a,b indicate that their corresponding means are significantly different (P<0.05) according to one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test.

Type of vaccine	Day post-hatching (day)
Type of vaccine	10	20	30	40
MA	4.00±0.58^ab	3.67±0.33^bc	1.67±0.33^a	1.33±0.33^a
MP	4.00±0.00^ab	3.67±0.33^bc	1.67±0.33^a	1.33±0.33^a
MS	3.67±0.33^b	3.33±0.33^b	2.33±0.33^ab	1.33±0.33^a
BAP	4.67±0.33^ab	4.67±0.33^c	2.33±0.33^ab	1.67±0.33^a
BAS	5.00±0.58^c	4.33±0.33^bc	2.33±0.33^ab	1.67±0.33^a
BPS	4.33±0.33^ab	4.33±0.33^bc	2.33±0.33^ab	1.33±0.33^a
PAPS	6.33±0.33^d	5.67±0.33^d	3.00±0.33^b	1.67±0.33^a
Control	1.67±0.33^a	1.67±0.33^a	1.67±0.33^a	1.33±0.33^a

Broodstock and offspring lysozyme activity

The lysozyme activity in the fishes from the vaccinated broodstock was higher than those unvaccinated ones (P<0.05) (Figure 3). Generally, the offspring from the broodstock that were vaccinated with PAPS had a higher lysozyme activity than those of other treatments (P<0.05) up to the 30^th day. The results showed that the application of PAPS in tilapia broodstock could increase lysozyme activity transferred to the offsprings (Figure 4).

Figure 3. The lysozyme activity in the tilapia broodstock after being vaccinated with the various types of vaccines (mean±SE).

M: monovalent, B: Bivalent, P: Polyvalent vaccine, A: A. hydrophila, S: S. agalactiae, P: P. fluorescens. Values with different superscripts a,b indicate that their corresponding means are significantly different (P<0.05) according to one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test.

Figure 4. The lysozyme Activity of tilapia offspring from maternal immunity produced by various types of vaccines at the ages of 10, 20, 30 and 40 days post-hatching (mean±SE).

M: monovalent, B: Bivalent, P: Polyvalent vaccine, A: A. hydrophila, S: S. agalactiae, P: P. fluorescens. Values with different superscripts a,b indicate that their corresponding means are significantly different (P<0.05) according to one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test.

RPS of offspring post-challenge

Offsprings that were 10, 20, 30, and 40 days old from the vaccinated broodstock had higher RPS than those from the unvaccinated broodstock after being challenged with bacteria. The offsprings from the broodstock that were vaccinated with PAPS had the highest SR and RPS when challenged with 3 bacteria simultaneously (a combination between A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens) (Table 3) up to day 30.

Table 3. The Relative Percentage Survival (RPS) of tilapia offspring from maternal immunity produced by various types of vaccines at the ages of 10, 20, 30 and 40 days post-hatching.

The offspring were produced by broodstock vaccinated with various types of vaccines through intramuscular (i.m.) injection (mean±SE).

Type of vaccine	Day post-hatching (day)
Type of vaccine	10	20	30	40
MA	66.67±4.81^a	55.26±5.26^a	41.03±2.56^a	14.29±4.96^a
MP	61.11±2.78^a	50.00±6.96^a	41.03±2.56^a	14.29±4.96^a
MS	63.89±2.78^a	52.63±4.56^a	43.59±2.56^a	17.14±2.86^a
BAP	72.22±2.78^a	60.53±4.56^a	46.15±4.44^ab	11.43±7.56^a
BAS	69.44±2.78^a	60.53±4.56^a	46.15±4.44^ab	14.29±4.95^a
BPS	69.44±7.35^a	57.89±6.96^a	43.59±2.56^a	11.43±2.86^a
PAPS	86.11±2.78^b	78.95±2.63^b	56.41±5.13^b	20.00±2.86^a

Discussion

Efforts to produce seeds that are immune to several diseases was the best alternative to increasing Nile tilapia production. Furthermore, PAPSs for A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens was able to improve the broodstock’s immune response which was then transferred to the seeds. This process was carried out in other to produce seeds that possess both lysozyme and antibodies and a high survival rate post-challenge test using pathogenic bacteria. This was better than the other treatments that made use of the bivalent and monovalent vaccines.

The results from the observation of the broodstock for 28 days showed that the total leukocyte (Figure 1), phagocytic (Figure 2), antibody titer (Table 1), and lysozyme activity (Figure 3), started to increase in week two post-vaccination. The broodstock vaccinated with PAPS showed a higher increase in the immune response compared to the others that were vaccinated with the bivalent, monovalent vaccines, and was the lowest in the unvaccinated broodstock^{14,16,19,20,33}. This showed that PAPS could increase the Nile tilapia broodstock’s immune response better than the other treatments.

The offspring produced from the broodstock that were vaccinated with PAPS had the highest antibodies (Table 2) and lysozyme activity (Figure 4) up to the 30^th day post-hatching period and was the lowest in the offsprings from the unvaccinated broodstock (P<0.05). This demonstrated that their strong immune response was transferred to their offsprings^{13–15,19,20,34} through the egg yolk³⁵.

The results from the challenge test using pathogenic bacteria (Table 3) showed that the offsprings that were produced using PAPS had a higher RPS compared to those from the offsprings produced from broodstocks that were treated using the monovalent and bivalent vaccines (P<0.05). This further showed that the vaccine treatment had adequately protected the fishes from bacterial diseases with an RPS that was greater than 60% up to the 30^th day post-hatching period^19,20,31. The high RPS in the offspring during the challenge test using pathogenic bacteria in PAPS treatment was due to the broodstock’s high number of leukocytes, phagocytic activity, the amount of antibody, and lysozyme activity transferred to the offsprings for protection against diseases.

The role of leukocytes which consist of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes, is to infiltrate the infected area for rapid protection³⁶, stimulating the production of antibodies through the recognition of foreign bodies, including vaccines and pathogens during the challenge test in this study. The phagocytic activity occurs during phagocytosis, which involves antibodies and complements during opsonization. Furthermore, the total leukocyte parameter increases in line with other immune responses, such as the antibacterial lysozyme, which triggers the complement system and phagocytic cells^36–38. It encourages phagocytosis by activating leukocytes and polymorphonuclear macrophages or through opsonization³⁹. The high number of leukocytes and a large amount of lysozyme in the treatment using PAPS which is similar to an infection by a pathogen indicated the success of PAPS in triggering the fish’s immune system when developing an immune response.

The offsprings produced by the broodstock that were vaccinated with PAPS were protected from infections by A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens. However, the monovalent vaccines only protected the offsprings from one type of bacteria. This is one of the advantages of applying PAPS. The results of this study revealed that the application of PAPS produced broodstock and offspring with better immune responses than the bivalent and monovalent vaccines. Therefore, the development of a polyvalent vaccine is more prudent than that of bivalent or monovalent because of its ability to target more than one species of bacteria^{17,33,34,39–42}. The use of this type of vaccine caused the fish to respond to multiple antigens and form an immune response, thereby making it a strategic method in controlling bacterial diseases commonly found in culture and breeding environments^19,20,34,43. Additionally, the application of polyvalent vaccines is more practical than the monovalent containing only one type of antigen. This showed that PAPS provided the most effective protection against diseases caused by pathogenic bacteria that often affect fishes, and thus is an ideal candidate for developing a polyvalent vaccine against bacterial infection.

Conclusion

The results show that the application of the polyvaccine against A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens increased the antibody, lysozyme, total leukocytes, and phagocytic activity in Nile tilapa broodstock which was transferred to their offsprings, leading to a high RPS during the challenge test. Therefore, it is possible to produce seeds of Nile tilapia that are immune to diseases caused by A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens. This process could be carried out through the vaccination of the broodstocks using a polyvalent vaccine against A. hydrophila, S. agalactiae, and P. fluorescens.

Data availability

Underlying data

OSF: Underlying data for ‘Transfer of maternal immunity using a polyvalent vaccine and offspring protection in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus’. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cnqdg⁴⁴

The project contains the following underlying data:

Data on broodstock immune response, offspring immune response, and offspring RPS in tilapia, O. niloticus can be accessed on OSF

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Ethical statement

Research using fish in Indonesia has not been regulated and therefore it does not require animal ethics. However, this research has received approval from the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia (No.: 004/PL.22.7.1/SP-PG/2019). In addition, this study applies the principle of the International Animal Welfare standards including the assurance of fish welfare during maintenance and the use of drugs during sampling.

Acknowledgments

Special gratitude also goes to the Director of Pangkep State Polytechnique of Agriculture, South Sulawesi, Indonesia for allowing the sample analysed in the laboratory.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Klesius P, Shoemaker C, Evans J: Streptococcus: a worldwide fish health problem. In 8th international symposium on tilapia in aquaculture. 2008; 83–107. Reference Source
2. Yue F, Zhou Z, Wang L, et al.: Maternal transfer of immunity in scallop Chlamys farreri and its trans-generational immune protection to offspring against bacterial challenge. Dev Comp Immunol. 2013; 41(4): 569–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Nayak SK: Current prospects and challenges in fish vaccine development in India with special reference to Aeromonas hydrophila vaccine. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020; 100: 283–299. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Wang Q, Ji W, Xu Z: Current use and development of fish vaccines in China. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020; 96: 223–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Zhao Z, Zhang C, Lina Q, et al.: Single-walled carbon nanotubes as delivery vehicles enhance the immunoprotective effect of an immersion DNA vaccine against infectious spleen and kidney necrosis virus in mandarin fish. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020; 97: 432–439. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Zhang Z, Liu G, Ma R, et al.: The immunoprotective effect of whole-cell lysed inactivated vaccine with SWCNT as a carrier against Aeromonas hydrophila infection in grass carp. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020; 97: 336–343. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Zapata A, Diez B, Cejalvo T, et al.: Ontogeny of the immune system of fish. Fish and Shellfish Immunol. 2006; 20(2): 126–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Poorten TJ, Kuhn RE: Maternal transfer of antibodies to eggs in Xenopus laevis. Dev Comp Immunol. 2009; 33(2): 171–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Wang H, Ji D, Shao J, et al.: Maternal transfer and protective role of antibodies in zebrafish Danio rerio. Mol Immunol. 2012; 51(3–4): 332–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Zhang S, Wang Z, Wang H: Maternal immunity in fish. Dev Comp Immunol. 2013; 39(1–2): 72–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Gilman CL, Soon R, Sauvage L, et al.: Umbilical cord blood and placental mercury, selenium and selenoprotein expression in relation to maternal fish consumption. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2015; 30: 17–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Itoi S, Suzuki M, Asahina K, et al.: Role of maternal tetrodotoxin in survival of larval pufferfish. Toxicon. 2018; 148: 95–100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Hanif A, Bakopoulos V, Dimitriadis GJ: Maternal transfer of humoral specific and non-specific immune parameters to sea bream (Sparus aurata) larvae. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2004; 17(5): 411–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Nisaa K, Sukenda, Junior MZ, et al.: Fry tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) antibody improvement against Streptococcus agalactiae through broodstock vaccination. Pakistan J Biotechnol. 2017. Reference Source
15. Sukenda, Rahman, Nisaa K, et al.: The efficacy of Streptococcus agalactiae vaccine preparations, administered to tilapia broodstock, in preventing streptococcosis in their offspring, via transfer of maternal immunity. Aquac Int. 2018; 26: 785–798. Publisher Full Text
16. Wang J, He RZ, Lu GL, et al.: Vaccine-induced antibody level as the parameter of the influence of environmental salinity on vaccine efficacy in Nile tilapia. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018; 82: 522–530. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Cheng ZX, Chu X, Wang S, et al.: Six genes of ompA family shuffling for development of polyvalent vaccines against Vibrio alginolyticus and Edwardsiella tarda. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018; 75: 308–315. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Hoare R, Jung SJ, Ngo TPH: Efficacy and safety of a non-mineral oil adjuvanted injectable vaccine for the protection of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) against Flavobacterium psychrophilum Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019; 85: 44–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Abu-Elala NM, Samir A, Wasfy M, et al.: Efficacy of Injectable and Immersion Polyvalent Vaccine against Streptococcal Infections in Broodstock and Offspring of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019; 88: 293–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Nurani FS, Sukenda, Nuryati S: Maternal immunity of tilapia broodstock vaccinated with polyvalent vaccine and resistance of their offspring against Streptococcus agalactiae. Aquac Res. 2020; 51(4): 1513–1522. Publisher Full Text
21. Ekasari J, Rivandi DR, Firdausi AP, et al.: Biofloc technology positively affects Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) larvae performance. Aquaculture. 2015. Publisher Full Text
22. Hardi EH, Nugroho RA, Kusuma IW, et al.: Borneo herbal plant extracts as a natural medication for prophylaxis and treatment ofAeromonas hydrophila and Pseudomonas fluorescens infection in Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Res. 2019; 7: 1847. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Mo XB, Wang J, Guo S, et al.: Potential of naturally attenuated Streptococcus agalactiae as a live vaccine in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture. 2020; 518: 734774. Publisher Full Text
24. Hal AM, El-Barbary MI: Gene expression and histopathological changes of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) infected with Aeromonas hydrophila and Pseudomonas fluorescens. Aquaculture. 2020; 526: 735392. Publisher Full Text
25. Mahmoud MMA, El-Lamie MMM, Kilany OE, et al.: Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) supplementation improves growth performance, feed utilization, immune response, and relieves oxidative stress in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) challenged with Pseudomonas fluorescens. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018; 72: 291–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Anderson DP: Fish immunology. Book 4. (TFH Publications, Inc., 1974). Reference Source
27. Blaxhall PC, Daisley KW: Routine haematological methods for use with fish blood. J Fish Biol. 1973. Publisher Full Text
28. Anderson D, Siwicki A: Basic hematology and serology for fish health programs. In: ed: Shariff M, Arthur JR, Subasinghe RP. Diseases in Asian aquaculture II. in Fish Health Section. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, 1995. Reference Source
29. Tachibana L, Telli GS, Dias DDC, et al.: Effect of feeding strategy of probiotic Enterococcus faecium on growth performance, hematologic, biochemical parameters and non-specific immune response of Nile tilapia. Aquac Reports. 2020. Publisher Full Text
30. Cavalcante RB, Telli GS, Tachibana L, et al.: Probiotics, Prebiotics and Synbiotics for Nile tilapia: Growth performance and protection against Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Aquac Rep. 2020. Publisher Full Text
31. Amend DF: Potency testing of fish vaccines. Dev Biol Stand. 1981; 49: 447–454.
32. Xu H, Xing J, Tang X, et al.: The effects of CCL3, CCL4, CCL19 and CCL21 as molecular adjuvants on the immune response to VAA DNA vaccine in flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Dev Comp Immunol. 2020; 103: 103492. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Li H, Chu X, Peng B, et al.: DNA shuffling approach for recombinant polyvalent OmpAs against V. alginolyticus and E. tarda infections. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016; 58: 508–513. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Grindstaff JL: Maternal antibodies reduce costs of an immune response during development. J Exp Biol. 2008; 211(Pt 5): 654–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Risjani Y, Yunianta, Couteau J, et al.: Cellular immune responses and phagocytic activity of fishes exposed to pollution of volcano mud. Mar Environ Res. 2014; 96: 73–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Jollès P, Jollès J: What's new in lysozyme research? Always a model system, today as yesterday. Mol Cell Biochem,. 1984; 63(2): 165–89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Grinde B, Lie Ø, Poppe T, et al.: Species and individual variation in lysozyme activity in fish of interest in aquaculture. Aquaculture. 1988; 68(4): 299–304. Publisher Full Text
38. Panase P, Saenphet S, Saenphet K: Visceral and serum lysozyme activities in some freshwater fish (three catfish and two carps). Comp Clin Path. 2017; 26: 169–173. Publisher Full Text
39. Nikoskelainen S, Verho S, Järvinen S, et al.: Multiple whole bacterial antigens in polyvalent vaccine may result in inhibition of specific responses in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2007; 22(3): 206–17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Peng B, Ye JZ, Han Y, et al.: Identification of polyvalent protective immunogens from outer membrane proteins in Vibrio parahaemolyticus to protect fish against bacterial infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016; 54: 204–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. Park S, Nho SW, Jang HB, et al.: Development of three-valent vaccine against streptococcal infections in olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus. Aquaculture. 2016; 461: 25–31. Publisher Full Text
42. Peng B, Lin XP, Wang SN, et al.: Polyvalent protective immunogens identified from outer membrane proteins of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and their induced innate immune response. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018; 72: 104–110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Plant KP, LaPatra SE: Advances in fish vaccine delivery. Dev Comp Immunol. 2011; 35(12): 1256–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
44. Amrullah: Transfer of maternal immunity project. Center for Open Science. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cnqdg

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 4

VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 24 Sep 2021

Author details Author details

¹ Aquaculture, Pangkep State Polytechnic of Agriculture, Pangkep, South Sulawesi, 90655, Indonesia
² Agricultural Technology Education, Makassar State University, Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Amrullah Amrullah
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Wahidah Wahidah
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ardiansyah Ardiansyah
Roles: Data Curation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation

Indrayani Indrayani
Roles: Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia for funding this study through the 2019 National Strategic Research Scheme (No.: 004/PL.22.7.1/SP-PG/2019).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (4)

version 4

Revised

Published: 10 Nov 2023, 10:966

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52932.4

version 3

Revised

Published: 09 Mar 2023, 10:966

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52932.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 15 Jun 2022, 10:966

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52932.2

version 1

Published: 24 Sep 2021, 10:966

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52932.1

Copyright

© 2021 Amrullah A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Amrullah A, Wahidah W, Ardiansyah A and Indrayani I. Transfer of maternal immunity using a polyvalent vaccine and offspring protection in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 10:966 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52932.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 24 Sep 2021

Views

31

Reviewer Report 28 Jan 2022

Chanagun Chitmanat, Faculty of Fisheries Technology and Aquatic Resources, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.56264.r101122

The work is clearly and accurately presented. It is interesting research and I hope they can further study for farm application. However, the other serious bacteria pathogen is missing. Please add more review about Flavobacterium columnare. In addition, the viral ... Continue reading

The work is clearly and accurately presented. It is interesting research and I hope they can further study for farm application. However, the other serious bacteria pathogen is missing. Please add more review about Flavobacterium columnare. In addition, the viral pathogen doesn't be mentioned. It seems survival rates were quite low after bacterial challenge. Please discuss about low survival and how to improve it.

This work, of course, has academic merit. This study was well designed, the details of the methods are enough and they could be replicated, and the statistical analysis was appropriate. However, please discuss more about the negative control. No challenge test for control groups? All the source data underlying the results were available to ensure full reproducibility and the conclusions are drawn adequately and supported by the results. However, I just wonder about the TiLV problem? Do you plan to produce vaccines?

In addition to the previous comments, enclosed is the manuscript with some additional comments.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: fish immunology, fish diseases, aquaculture, aquaculture extension

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

31

Reviewer Report 01 Dec 2021

Najiah Musa, Faculty of Fisheries and Food Science, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.56264.r98048

Summary

The study examined the transfer of vaccine-induced maternal immunity in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus against Aeromonas hydrophila, Streptococcus agalactiae and Pseudomonas fluorescens. The protective effects of monovalent, bivalent and polyvalent vaccines were compared. The relative percentage ... Continue reading

Summary

The study examined the transfer of vaccine-induced maternal immunity in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus against Aeromonas hydrophila, Streptococcus agalactiae and Pseudomonas fluorescens. The protective effects of monovalent, bivalent and polyvalent vaccines were compared. The relative percentage survival in immersion challenges, agglutination titers and lysozyme activities indicated that the polyvalent vaccine induced significantly better immune response compared with the bivalent, monovalent and unvaccinated groups.

Part of the introduction is rather brief. Suggestion for improvement as follows:

Provide more references on vaccination in tilapia. The following two contain some of the relevant information
https://doi.org/10.1002/aah.10099
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2019.04.052
Until which stage of offspring is the immune system not ready for immune response? Juvenile? Please elaborate more.
What types of Ig are transferable through eggs? Please elaborate.

Part of the method description is rather brief and lacks references. Suggestion for improvements as follows:

Provide the reference for the two formalin concentrations used for inactivation of bacteria.
Mention the site of IM injection and provide the reference.
Mention the final bacterial concentration (cfu/mL) in the vaccines used at 0.4 mL/ kg.
Mention the size of the dirt ponds.
Detail the antigen preparation for direct agglutination test. Was it monovalent, bivalent or polyvalent?

Please see some additional annotations here.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Shirajum Monir M, Yusoff SM, Mohamad A, Ina-Salwany MY: Vaccination of Tilapia against Motile Aeromonas Septicemia: A Review.J Aquat Anim Health. 32 (2): 65-76 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Laith AA, Abdullah MA, Nurhafizah WWI, Hussein HA, et al.: Efficacy of live attenuated vaccine derived from the Streptococcus agalactiae on the immune responses of Oreochromis niloticus.Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019; 90: 235-243 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Aquatic animal health, microbiology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 4

VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 24 Sep 2021

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 4 (revision) 10 Nov 23			read
Version 3 (revision) 09 Mar 23			read
Version 2 (revision) 15 Jun 22	read
Version 1 24 Sep 21	read	read

Najiah Musa, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia
Chanagun Chitmanat, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Indriyani Nur, Halu Oleo University, Kendari, Indonesia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

27 Nov 2023 | for Version 4

Indriyani Nur, Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Halu Oleo University, Kendari, South East Sulawesi, Indonesia

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

There will be no corrections from me to this manuscript any more. Everything has been revised by the authors. Therefore, it deserves to be approved.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Health of Aquaculture Organisms

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

08 Sep 2023 | for Version 3

Indriyani Nur, Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Halu Oleo University, Kendari, South East Sulawesi, Indonesia

16 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

This study examines the presence of maternal immunity and the ability of polyvalent vaccines to protect offspring for several days. Some notes and corrections to the manuscript, including:

Please, describe how to collect eggs after spawning and hatching the eggs?
Please, describe in more detail the agglutination test, such as: (1) the serum dilution in each well, (2) how about wells for positive and negative control?
Make sure the information/symbol in the legend is the same as what is written in the caption figure or table.
What are the unit for agglutination titer in Tables 1 and 2?
On the 40th day, the observed parameters in all treatments were not significant, what does that mean on offspring?
There are several sentences that need to be revised according to the comments on manuscript.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Health of Aquaculture Organisms

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

38 Views

04 Aug 2022 | for Version 2

Najiah Musa, Faculty of Fisheries and Food Science, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia

38 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Please refer to the highlights in the attached pdf.

P3: Intro

Para 1

Streptococcus agalactia, Aeromonas hydrophila, Edwardsiella ictaluri, Flavobacterium columnaris, and Pseudomonas fluorescens are the pathogens. Disease refer to the infection, for examples Streptococcus agalactiae infection, Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Please revise. Consider 'Streptococcus agalactiae, Aeromonas hydrophila, Edwardsiella ictaluri, Flavobacterium columnaris, and Pseudomonas fluorescens infections'.

Tilapia lake virus is the pathogen, the disease is tilapia lake virus disease.

Para 2

'The offspring of fish' instead of 'their offspring' because 'they' refers to 'vaccines'

Para 4

It isn't applying polyvalent vaccines in offspring through maternal immunity, but 'application of polyvalent vaccines to confer maternal immunity in offspring'. Please rephrase.

Methods

Para 1, experimental animal

What size was the spawning ponds that you managed to replace 25% of water daily? Please provide the dimension (LxWxD).

Para 2, vaccine production

The test vaccine. Please provide reasons why S.agalactiae and P. fluorescens were inactivated with 1% formalin while A.hydrophila inactivated with 0.6%?

P4: Para 1, vaccine treatments and administration

Did you vaccinate both female and male broodstocks, or only female? Please mention.
Revise 'However, before being injected with the vaccines, they were first anesthetized using MS-222, Sigma.'
Consider: The fish were anesthetized using MS-222 (Sigma) prior to injection.

Para 2

25x30x1.2 m (L×W×D)

Para 3

Broodstock and larvae immune response.
Intramuscular blood samples? Not caudal vein?

Para 4

Instead of 'post-spawning period', 'post-hatching period' will better reflect the offspring size. Please revise.
How many offspring was ground in a tube, and what kind of tube was it?
Why was there a range of 5-10 minutes centrifugation time? If the samples were centrifuged for different lengths of time, would it have affected the parameters later? Please clarify.
Inactivate the complements or components?
What type of antigen? Whole-cell antigen?

Para 5: Challenge procedures

How long was the immersion in water containing pathogenic bacteria?

P4 Results

Broodstock total leukocyte dan phagocytic activity post vaccination
PAPs did not result in highest total leukocyte in different time frames. BAP was highest on day 14.

P5, para 1: Broodstock and offspring agglutination titers

Please provide explanation as to why the unvaccinated fish (control) also show agglutination titer (although lower).

Para 4, RPS of offspring post-challenge

86.11% (10 days old), 78.95% (20 days old) and 56.41% (30 days old)
Please provide explanation as to why the offspring of PAPS vaccinated broodstock encountered drops of RPS from 10 days old to 30 days old.

P5, Discussion, para 1

Was carried out in order to produce...

P7, Para 1

The statement 'in the control (unvaccinated), there was no transfer of immunity from the mother' is not generally true. If the unvaccinated broodstocks have acquired immunity from prior infections, the immunity will have been passed on to the offspring as maternal immunity. It is only true that the offspring of the unvaccinated broodstocks did not have the vaccine-induced maternal immunity.

The statement 'the offspring hasn’t been able to produce their own immune response, so the total leukocyte, phagocytic activity, antibody, and low lysozyme activity' is not true. The offspring of the unvaccinated broodstocks did show immune response to the bacterial challenge but at the lower level compared with vaccinated group.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Aquatic animal health, microbiology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

31 Views

28 Jan 2022 | for Version 1

Chanagun Chitmanat, Faculty of Fisheries Technology and Aquatic Resources, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

31 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The work is clearly and accurately presented. It is interesting research and I hope they can further study for farm application. However, the other serious bacteria pathogen is missing. Please add more review about Flavobacterium columnare. In addition, the viral pathogen doesn't be mentioned. It seems survival rates were quite low after bacterial challenge. Please discuss about low survival and how to improve it.

This work, of course, has academic merit. This study was well designed, the details of the methods are enough and they could be replicated, and the statistical analysis was appropriate. However, please discuss more about the negative control. No challenge test for control groups? All the source data underlying the results were available to ensure full reproducibility and the conclusions are drawn adequately and supported by the results. However, I just wonder about the TiLV problem? Do you plan to produce vaccines?

In addition to the previous comments, enclosed is the manuscript with some additional comments.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

fish immunology, fish diseases, aquaculture, aquaculture extension

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

31 Views

01 Dec 2021 | for Version 1

Najiah Musa, Faculty of Fisheries and Food Science, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia

31 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Summary

The study examined the transfer of vaccine-induced maternal immunity in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus against Aeromonas hydrophila, Streptococcus agalactiae and Pseudomonas fluorescens. The protective effects of monovalent, bivalent and polyvalent vaccines were compared. The relative percentage survival in immersion challenges, agglutination titers and lysozyme activities indicated that the polyvalent vaccine induced significantly better immune response compared with the bivalent, monovalent and unvaccinated groups.

Part of the introduction is rather brief. Suggestion for improvement as follows:

Provide more references on vaccination in tilapia. The following two contain some of the relevant information
https://doi.org/10.1002/aah.10099
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2019.04.052
Until which stage of offspring is the immune system not ready for immune response? Juvenile? Please elaborate more.
What types of Ig are transferable through eggs? Please elaborate.

Part of the method description is rather brief and lacks references. Suggestion for improvements as follows:

Provide the reference for the two formalin concentrations used for inactivation of bacteria.
Mention the site of IM injection and provide the reference.
Mention the final bacterial concentration (cfu/mL) in the vaccines used at 0.4 mL/ kg.
Mention the size of the dirt ponds.
Detail the antigen preparation for direct agglutination test. Was it monovalent, bivalent or polyvalent?

Please see some additional annotations here.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Shirajum Monir M, Yusoff SM, Mohamad A, Ina-Salwany MY: Vaccination of Tilapia against Motile Aeromonas Septicemia: A Review.J Aquat Anim Health. 32 (2): 65-76 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Laith AA, Abdullah MA, Nurhafizah WWI, Hussein HA, et al.: Efficacy of live attenuated vaccine derived from the Streptococcus agalactiae on the immune responses of Oreochromis niloticus.Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019; 90: 235-243 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Aquatic animal health, microbiology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Klesius P, Shoemaker C, Evans J: Streptococcus: a worldwide fish health problem. In 8th international symposium on tilapia in aquaculture. 2008; 83–107. Reference Source

[2] 2. Yue F, Zhou Z, Wang L, et al.: Maternal transfer of immunity in scallop Chlamys farreri and its trans-generational immune protection to offspring against bacterial challenge. Dev Comp Immunol. 2013; 41(4): 569–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Nayak SK: Current prospects and challenges in fish vaccine development in India with special reference to Aeromonas hydrophila vaccine. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020; 100: 283–299. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Wang Q, Ji W, Xu Z: Current use and development of fish vaccines in China. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020; 96: 223–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Zhao Z, Zhang C, Lina Q, et al.: Single-walled carbon nanotubes as delivery vehicles enhance the immunoprotective effect of an immersion DNA vaccine against infectious spleen and kidney necrosis virus in mandarin fish. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020; 97: 432–439. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Zhang Z, Liu G, Ma R, et al.: The immunoprotective effect of whole-cell lysed inactivated vaccine with SWCNT as a carrier against Aeromonas hydrophila infection in grass carp. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020; 97: 336–343. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Zapata A, Diez B, Cejalvo T, et al.: Ontogeny of the immune system of fish. Fish and Shellfish Immunol. 2006; 20(2): 126–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Poorten TJ, Kuhn RE: Maternal transfer of antibodies to eggs in Xenopus laevis. Dev Comp Immunol. 2009; 33(2): 171–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Wang H, Ji D, Shao J, et al.: Maternal transfer and protective role of antibodies in zebrafish Danio rerio. Mol Immunol. 2012; 51(3–4): 332–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Zhang S, Wang Z, Wang H: Maternal immunity in fish. Dev Comp Immunol. 2013; 39(1–2): 72–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Gilman CL, Soon R, Sauvage L, et al.: Umbilical cord blood and placental mercury, selenium and selenoprotein expression in relation to maternal fish consumption. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2015; 30: 17–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Itoi S, Suzuki M, Asahina K, et al.: Role of maternal tetrodotoxin in survival of larval pufferfish. Toxicon. 2018; 148: 95–100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Hanif A, Bakopoulos V, Dimitriadis GJ: Maternal transfer of humoral specific and non-specific immune parameters to sea bream (Sparus aurata) larvae. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2004; 17(5): 411–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Nisaa K, Sukenda, Junior MZ, et al.: Fry tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) antibody improvement against Streptococcus agalactiae through broodstock vaccination. Pakistan J Biotechnol. 2017. Reference Source

[15] 15. Sukenda, Rahman, Nisaa K, et al.: The efficacy of Streptococcus agalactiae vaccine preparations, administered to tilapia broodstock, in preventing streptococcosis in their offspring, via transfer of maternal immunity. Aquac Int. 2018; 26: 785–798. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Wang J, He RZ, Lu GL, et al.: Vaccine-induced antibody level as the parameter of the influence of environmental salinity on vaccine efficacy in Nile tilapia. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018; 82: 522–530. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Cheng ZX, Chu X, Wang S, et al.: Six genes of ompA family shuffling for development of polyvalent vaccines against Vibrio alginolyticus and Edwardsiella tarda. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018; 75: 308–315. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Hoare R, Jung SJ, Ngo TPH: Efficacy and safety of a non-mineral oil adjuvanted injectable vaccine for the protection of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) against Flavobacterium psychrophilum Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019; 85: 44–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Abu-Elala NM, Samir A, Wasfy M, et al.: Efficacy of Injectable and Immersion Polyvalent Vaccine against Streptococcal Infections in Broodstock and Offspring of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019; 88: 293–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Nurani FS, Sukenda, Nuryati S: Maternal immunity of tilapia broodstock vaccinated with polyvalent vaccine and resistance of their offspring against Streptococcus agalactiae. Aquac Res. 2020; 51(4): 1513–1522. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Ekasari J, Rivandi DR, Firdausi AP, et al.: Biofloc technology positively affects Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) larvae performance. Aquaculture. 2015. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Hardi EH, Nugroho RA, Kusuma IW, et al.: Borneo herbal plant extracts as a natural medication for prophylaxis and treatment ofAeromonas hydrophila and Pseudomonas fluorescens infection in Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Res. 2019; 7: 1847. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Mo XB, Wang J, Guo S, et al.: Potential of naturally attenuated Streptococcus agalactiae as a live vaccine in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture. 2020; 518: 734774. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Hal AM, El-Barbary MI: Gene expression and histopathological changes of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) infected with Aeromonas hydrophila and Pseudomonas fluorescens. Aquaculture. 2020; 526: 735392. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Mahmoud MMA, El-Lamie MMM, Kilany OE, et al.: Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) supplementation improves growth performance, feed utilization, immune response, and relieves oxidative stress in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) challenged with Pseudomonas fluorescens. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018; 72: 291–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Anderson DP: Fish immunology. Book 4. (TFH Publications, Inc., 1974). Reference Source

[27] 27. Blaxhall PC, Daisley KW: Routine haematological methods for use with fish blood. J Fish Biol. 1973. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Anderson D, Siwicki A: Basic hematology and serology for fish health programs. In: ed: Shariff M, Arthur JR, Subasinghe RP. Diseases in Asian aquaculture II. in Fish Health Section. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, 1995. Reference Source

[29] 29. Tachibana L, Telli GS, Dias DDC, et al.: Effect of feeding strategy of probiotic Enterococcus faecium on growth performance, hematologic, biochemical parameters and non-specific immune response of Nile tilapia. Aquac Reports. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Cavalcante RB, Telli GS, Tachibana L, et al.: Probiotics, Prebiotics and Synbiotics for Nile tilapia: Growth performance and protection against Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Aquac Rep. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Amend DF: Potency testing of fish vaccines. Dev Biol Stand. 1981; 49: 447–454.

[32] 32. Xu H, Xing J, Tang X, et al.: The effects of CCL3, CCL4, CCL19 and CCL21 as molecular adjuvants on the immune response to VAA DNA vaccine in flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Dev Comp Immunol. 2020; 103: 103492. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Li H, Chu X, Peng B, et al.: DNA shuffling approach for recombinant polyvalent OmpAs against V. alginolyticus and E. tarda infections. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016; 58: 508–513. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Grindstaff JL: Maternal antibodies reduce costs of an immune response during development. J Exp Biol. 2008; 211(Pt 5): 654–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Risjani Y, Yunianta, Couteau J, et al.: Cellular immune responses and phagocytic activity of fishes exposed to pollution of volcano mud. Mar Environ Res. 2014; 96: 73–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Jollès P, Jollès J: What's new in lysozyme research? Always a model system, today as yesterday. Mol Cell Biochem,. 1984; 63(2): 165–89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Grinde B, Lie Ø, Poppe T, et al.: Species and individual variation in lysozyme activity in fish of interest in aquaculture. Aquaculture. 1988; 68(4): 299–304. Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Panase P, Saenphet S, Saenphet K: Visceral and serum lysozyme activities in some freshwater fish (three catfish and two carps). Comp Clin Path. 2017; 26: 169–173. Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Nikoskelainen S, Verho S, Järvinen S, et al.: Multiple whole bacterial antigens in polyvalent vaccine may result in inhibition of specific responses in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2007; 22(3): 206–17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Peng B, Ye JZ, Han Y, et al.: Identification of polyvalent protective immunogens from outer membrane proteins in Vibrio parahaemolyticus to protect fish against bacterial infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016; 54: 204–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Park S, Nho SW, Jang HB, et al.: Development of three-valent vaccine against streptococcal infections in olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus. Aquaculture. 2016; 461: 25–31. Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Peng B, Lin XP, Wang SN, et al.: Polyvalent protective immunogens identified from outer membrane proteins of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and their induced innate immune response. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018; 72: 104–110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Plant KP, LaPatra SE: Advances in fish vaccine delivery. Dev Comp Immunol. 2011; 35(12): 1256–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Amrullah: Transfer of maternal immunity project. Center for Open Science. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cnqdg

Transfer of maternal immunity using a polyvalent vaccine and offspring protection in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Experimental animal

Vaccine production

Vaccine treatments and administration

Broodstock and larvae immune response

Challenge procedures

Data analysis

Results

Broodstock total leukocyte dan phagocytic activity post-vaccination

Figure 1. Total leukocyte of tilapia broodstock after the vaccination with various types of vaccines (mean±SE).

Figure 2. The phagocytic activity in the tilapia broodstock after being vaccinated with the various types of vaccines (mean±SE).

Broodstock and offspring agglutination titers

Table 1. The agglutination titer in Nile tilapia broodstock after being vaccinated with various types of vaccines (mean±SE).

Table 2. The agglutination titer of tilapia offspring from maternal immunity produced by various types of vaccines at the ages of 10, 20, 30 and 40 days post-hatching (mean±SE).

Broodstock and offspring lysozyme activity

Figure 3. The lysozyme activity in the tilapia broodstock after being vaccinated with the various types of vaccines (mean±SE).

Figure 4. The lysozyme Activity of tilapia offspring from maternal immunity produced by various types of vaccines at the ages of 10, 20, 30 and 40 days post-hatching (mean±SE).

RPS of offspring post-challenge

Table 3. The Relative Percentage Survival (RPS) of tilapia offspring from maternal immunity produced by various types of vaccines at the ages of 10, 20, 30 and 40 days post-hatching.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Ethical statement

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated