Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T13:02:17.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oral vaccines for finfish: academic theory or commercial reality?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2007

Grant W. Vandenberg
Grant W. Vandenberg*
Affiliation:
PerOs Systems Technologies Inc., St Nicolas and Département des Sciences Animales, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aquaculture is the fastest growing food-producing sector, providing an acceptable supplement to and substitute for wild fish and plants. Increased production intensification, particularly in high-value species, involves substantial stress, which, as in other captive livestock species, has resulted in outbreaks of major diseases and related mortalities. Widespread use of antibiotics has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the accumulation of antibiotics in the environment and the flesh of fish. Thus, recently effort has been dedicated to vaccine development. Vaccination in fish is complicated by their aquatic environment. Individual injections are labor-intensive and stressful, since fish have to be removed from the water and anaesthetized. Some vaccines offer a limited duration of protection, and thus booster applications are required. In salmonid species, many commercial vaccines use oil-based adjuvants, resulting in a greatly improved duration of protection. However, oil-based adjuvants have been related to significant growth depression, internal adhesions and injection site melanization, resulting in carcass downgrading. Oral administration to aquatic species is by far the most appealing method of vaccine delivery: there is no handling of the fish, which reduces stress; and administration is easy and suitable for mass immunization. However, few oral vaccines have been commercialized, due in part to the increased quantity of antigen required to provoke an immune response, and the lack of an adequate duration of protection. For effective oral delivery, protective antigens must avoid digestive hydrolysis and be taken up in the hindgut in order to induce an effective protective immune response. Antigen encapsulation technologies have been used to protect antigen; however, such strategies can be expensive and are not always effective. Alternative approaches, currently under development, are discussed.

Keywords

oral vaccinesfinfish
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Health Research Reviews , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 2004 , pp. 301 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © CAB International 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D, Dixon, OW and Roherson, BS (1979). Kinetics of the primary immune response in rainbow trout after flush exposure to Yersinia ruckeri O-antigen. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 3: 739–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bootland, LM, Lizama, ML, Beifuss, K, Lamphear, B, Streatfield, S and Jilka, J (2003). Oral immunization of Atlantic salmon with corn-expressed recombinant protein marker proteins. In: 3rd International Symposium on Fish VaccinologyApril 9–11, 2003Bergen Norway In pressGoogle Scholar
Companjen, A, Florack, D, Bosh, D and Rombout, J (2003). Strategy for development of a cost-effective oral vaccination method against viral disease in fish. In: 3rd International Symposium on Fish VaccinologyApril 9–11, 2003Bergen Norway In pressGoogle Scholar
Eldridge, JH, Hammond, CJ, Meulbroek, JA, Staas, JK, Gilley, RM and Tice, TR (1990). Controlled vaccine release in the gut-associated lymphoid tissues. I. Orally administered biodegradable microspheres target the Peyer's patches. Journal of Controlled Release 11: 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, AE (1988). Optimizing factors for fish vaccination. In: Ellis, AE, editors. Fish Vaccination New York: Academic Press pp. 32–46Google Scholar
Ellis, AE, Stapleton, KJ and Hastings, TS (1988). The humoral immune response of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 19: 153–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evensen, O (2003). The vaccine formulation and its role in inflammatory processes in fish—effects and adverse effects. In: 3rd International Symposium on Fish VaccinologyApril 9–11, 2003Bergen Norway In pressGoogle Scholar
FAO (2000). World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Fisheries Resources: Trends In Production, Utilization and Trade Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGoogle Scholar
Fujino, H, Ono, S and Nagai, A (1987). Studies on uptake of rabbit's immunoglobulin into the columnar epithelial cells in the gut of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 53: 367–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgopoulou, U, Dabrowski, K, Sire, MF and Vernier, JM (1988). Absorption of intact proteins by the intestinal epithelium of trout (Salmo gairdneri). A luminance enzyme immunoassay and cytochemical study. Cell and Tissue Research 251: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gudding, R, Lillehaug, A and Evensen, O (1999). Recent developments in fish vaccinology. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 72: 203–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoel, K, Salonius, K and Lillehaug, A (1997). Vibrio antigens of polyvalent vaccines enhance the humoral immune response to Aeromonas salmonicida antigens in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Fish and Shellfish Immunology 7: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joosten, PHM, Aviles Trigueros, M, Sorgeloos, P and Rombout, JHWM (1995). Oral vaccination of juvenile carp (Cyprinus carpio) and gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) with bioencapsulated Vibrio anguillarum bacteria. Fish and Shellfish Immunology 5: 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joosten, PHM, Tiemersma, E, Threels, A, Caumatrin-Dhieux, C and Rombout, JHWM (1997). Oral vaccination of fish against Vibrio anguillarum using alginate microparticles. Fish and Shellfish Immunology 7: 461–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehaug, A (1989a). A cost-effectiveness study of three different methods of vaccination against vibriosis in salmonids. Aquaculture 83: 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehaug, A (1989b). Oral immunization of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson, against vibriosis with vaccines protected against digestive degradation. Journal of Fish Diseases 12: 579–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehaug, A (1991). Vaccinating salmonids against Vibrio. World Aquaculture 22: 19–24.Google Scholar
Midtlyng, PJ, Reitan, LJ, Lillehaug, A and Ramstad, A (1996). Protection, immune responses and side effects in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) vaccinated against furunculosis by different procedures. Fish and Shellfish Immunology 6: 599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, E and Ash, R (1986). The time-course of appearance and net accumulation of horseradish peroxidase (HRP) presented orally to juvenile carp, Cyprinus carpio (L). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A 84: 687–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moriyama, S, Takahashi, A, Hirano, T and Kawauchi, H (1990). Salmon growth hormone is transported into the circulation of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, after intestinal administration. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 160: 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, SG (1993). Bacterial vaccines for fish. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 3: 145–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y, Kobayashi, M, Aida, K and Hanyu, I (1988). Transport of physiologically active salmon gonadotropin into the circulation in goldfish, following oral administration of salmon pituitary extract. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 157: 753–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatner, MF and Horne, MT (1983). Susceptibility and immunity to Vibrio anguillarum in post-hatching rainbow trout fry, Salmo gairdneri. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 7: 465–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tatner, MF and Horne, MT (1986). Correlation of immune assays with protection in rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, immersed in Vibrio bacterins. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 2: 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatner, MF, Johnson, CM and Horne, MT (1984). The tissue localization of Aeromonas salmonicida in rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, following 3 methods of administration. Journal of Fish Biology 25: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatner, MR (1987). The quantitative relationship between vaccine dilution, length of immersion time and antigen uptake, using a radiolabelled Aeromonas salmonicida bath in direct immersion experiments with rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Aquaculture 62: 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenberg, GW, Gaudreault, C, Dallaire, V and Munger, G (2003). A novel system for oral vaccination of salmonids against furunculosis. In: Proceedings of Aquaculture America 2003Louisville, KY, USAFebruary 18–21 In pressGoogle Scholar
Wong, G, Kaattari, SL and Christensen, JM (1992). Effectiveness of an oral enteric coated vaccine for use in salmonid fish. Immunological Investigations 21: 353–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, HL (2003). Fish oral vaccine with recombinant E. coli encapsulated in brine shrimp. In: Proceedings, 3rd International Symposium on Fish vaccinologyApril 9–11, 2003Bergen, Norway In pressGoogle Scholar