Blood Lymphocyte And Neutrophil Response Of Cultured Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus Mykiss, Administered Varying Dosages Of An Oral Immunomodulator – 'Fin-Immune™'

In a 10-week (May – August, 2008) Phase I trial, 840, 1+ rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, received a commercial oral immunomodulator, Fin Immune™, at four different dosages (0, 10, 20 and 30 mg g-1) to evaluate immune response and growth. The overall objective of was to determine an optimal dosag...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Barker, Duane, Holliday, John
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Zenodo 2009
Subjects:
Raa
Online Access:https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1083286
https://zenodo.org/record/1083286
Description
Summary:In a 10-week (May – August, 2008) Phase I trial, 840, 1+ rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, received a commercial oral immunomodulator, Fin Immune™, at four different dosages (0, 10, 20 and 30 mg g-1) to evaluate immune response and growth. The overall objective of was to determine an optimal dosage of this product for rainbow trout that provides enhanced immunity with maximal growth and health. Biweekly blood samples were taken from 10 randomly selected fish in each tank (30 samples per treatment) to evaluate the duration of enhanced immunity conferred by Fin-Immune™. The immunological assessment included serum white blood cell (lymphocyte, neutrophil) densities and blood hematocrit (packed cell volume %). Of these three variables, only lymphocyte density increased significantly among trout fed Fin- Immune™ at 20 and 30 mg g-1 which peaked at week 6. At week 7, all trout were switched to regular feed (lacking Fin-Immune™) and by week 10, lymphocyte levels decreased among all levels but were still greater than at week 0. There was growth impairment at the highest dose of Fin-Immune™ tested (30 mg g-1) which can be associated with a physiological compensatory mechanism due to a dose-specific threshold level. Thus, our main objective of this Phase I study was achieved, the 20 mg g-1 dose of Fin-Immune™ should be the most efficacious (of those we tested) to use for a Phase II disease challenge trial. : {"references": ["Galindo-Villegas, J & H Hoskowa, 2004. Immunostimulants: towards\ntemporary prevention of diseases in marine fish. In: Avances en\nNutricion Acuicola VII. Morias del VII symposium Internacional de\nNutricion Acuicola. Nov. 2004. Eds. LE Cruz Suarez, D Ricque Marie,\nMG Nieto Lopez, D Villarreal, U Scholz & M Gonzalez.", "A. L. Gannam & R. M. Schrock, 1999. Immunostimulants in fish diets.\nJ. Appl. Aqua. 9: 53-89.", "M. Sakai, 1999. Current research status of fish immunostimulants.\nAquaculture 172: 63-92.", "S. P. Wasser, 2002. Medicinal mushrooms as a source of antitumour and\nimmunomodulating polysaccharides. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 60:\n258-274.", "D. E. Barker & J. Davis, 2004. Preliminary testing of oral\nimmunostimulants against Microsporidiosis in cultured cod (Gadus\nmorhua). Spec. Pub. Bull. Aqua. Assoc. Can. 8:20-26.", "C. Jenkins & D. E. Barker, 2005. The efficacy of oral immunostimulants\nin enhancing resistance against Microsporidiosis in juvenile Atlantic cod\n(Gadus morhua L.) Aqua Assoc Can Spec Pub 9: 97-100.", "R. J. Roberts, (ed.) 2001. Fish Pathology. WB Saunders, London. 472\npp.", "J. Raa, 1996. The use of immunostimulatory substances in fish and\nshellfish farming. Reviews in Fisheries Science 4: 229-288."]}