probiotics in aquaculture (sciverse sciencedirect)

8/12/2019 Probiotics in Aquaculture (SciVerse ScienceDirect)

1/5

Review Article

Probiotics in aquaculture

Priyadarshini Pandiyan a,*, Deivasigamani Balaraman b, Rajasekar Thirunavukkarasu a,Edward Gnana Jothi George a, Kumaran Subaramaniyan a, Sakthivel Manikkam a,Balamurugan Sadayappan a

a Ph.D Research Scholar, CAS in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parangipettai 608502, Tamil Nadu, IndiabAssistant Professor, CAS in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parangipettai 608502, Tamil Nadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 10 January 2013

Accepted 8 March 2013

Keywords:

Probiotic

Aquaculture

Lactic acid bacteria

Bacillussp

a b s t r a c t

Aquaculture is the worlds fastest growing food production sector. However, fish culture is

currently suffering from serious losses due to infectious diseases. The use of antimicrobial

drugs, pesticides and disinfectant in aquaculture disease prevention and growth promo-

tion has led to the evolution of resistant strains of bacteria. Thus, the research into the use

of probiotics for aquaculture is increasing with the demand for environment e friendly

sustainable aquaculture. The benefits of such supplements include improved feed value,

enzymatic contribution to digestion, inhibition of pathogenic microorganisms, anti-

mutagenic and anti-carcinogenic activity, and increased immune response. These pro-

biotics are harmless bacteria that help the well being of the host animal and contribute,

directly or indirectly to protect the host animal against harmful bacterial pathogens. Theuse of probiotics in aquaculture has just begun, due to the fact that gastrointestinal

microbiota of aquatic organisms has been poorly characterized, and their effects are not

studied extensively. This review summarizes and evaluates brief knowledge about the

probiotic organism, the action of probiotic in fish culture and the safety evaluation of

probiotics in aquaculture.

Copyright 2013, JPR Solutions; Published by Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. All rights

reserved.

1. Introduction

Today, aquaculture is the fastest growing food-producingsector in the world, with an average annual growth rate of

8.9% since 1970, compared to only 1.2% for capture fisheries

and 2.8% for terrestrial farmed meat production systems over

the same period.1 World aquaculture has grown tremen-

dously during the last fifty years from a production of less

than a million tonne in the early 1950s to 59.4 million tonnes

by 2004. This level ofproduction had a value of US$70.3 billion.

The diseases and deterioration of environmental conditions

often occur and result in serious economic losses.2

During the last decades, antibiotics used as traditional

strategy for fish diseases management and also for the

improvement of growth and efficiency of feed conversion.However, the development and spread of antimicrobial resis-

tant pathogens were well documented.3,4 There is a risk asso-

ciated with the transmission of resistant bacteria from

aquaculture environments to humans, and risk associated

with the introduction in the human environment of non-

pathogenic bacteria, containing antimicrobial resistance

genes, and the subsequent transfer of such genes to human

pathogens.5 Considering these factors, there has been height-

ened research in developing new dietary supplementation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 9524149006.E-mail address:[email protected](P. Pandiyan).

Available online atwww.sciencedirect.com

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . co m / l o c a t e / di t

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 9

0975-7619/$ e see front matter Copyright 2013, JPR Solutions; Published by Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003
mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09757619http://www.elsevier.com/locate/dithttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://www.elsevier.com/locate/dithttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09757619mailto:[email protected]


2/5


3/5

competing bacterial challenge for the same location on the

intestine. The aim of probiotic products designed under

competitive exclusion is to obtain: stable, agreeable and

controlled microbiota in cultures based on the following;

competition for attachment sites on the mucosa, competition

for nutrients and production of inhibitory substances by themicroflora which prevents replication and/destroys the chal-

lenging bacteria and hence reduce colonization.12 Different

strategies are displayed in the adhesion of microorganism to

those attachment sites as passive forces, electrostatic in-

teractions, hydrophobic, steric forces, lipoteichoic acids, ad-

hesions and specific structures of adhesion.41Adhesion and

colonization of the mucosal surfaces are possible protective

mechanisms against pathogens through competition for

binding sites and nutrients.42

5.2. Production of inhibitory compounds

Bacterial antagonism is a common phenomenon in nature;therefore, microbial interactions play a major role in the equi-

librium between competing beneficial and potentially patho-

genic microorganisms.43 Antagonistic compounds are defined

as chemical substances produced by microorganisms (in this

case bacteria) that are toxic (bactericidal) or inhibitory (bacte-

riostatic) toward other microorganisms. The presence of bacte-

ria producing antibacterial compounds in the intestine of the

host, on its surface, or in its culture water is thought to prevent

proliferation of pathogenic bacteria and even eliminate these.

The structure of the antibacterial compound is often not eluci-

dated and their mode of action has not been reported. Further-

more none of these reports demonstrate that the antibacterial

compound is produced in vivo. This will be of significantimportance, if production of these compounds and its mode of

action are understood. If the production of antibacterial com-

poundis the only mode ofaction,it is possible that thepathogen

eventually will develop resistance toward the compound. This

willresultinanineffectivetreatment.Theriskofthepathogento

develop resistance against the active compound has to be eval-

uated, to assure a stable effect of the probiotic bacterium.

5.3. Enhancement of the immune response against

pathogenic microorganisms

The immune systems of fish and higher vertebrates are

similar and both have two integral components: 1) the innate,

natural or nonspecific defense system formed by a series of

cellular and humoral components, and 2) the adaptive, ac-

quired or specific immune system characterized by the hu-

moral immune response through the production of antibodies

and by the cellular immune response which is mediated by T-

lymphocytes, capable of reacting specifically with antigens.

The normal microbiota in the GI ecosystem influences the

innate immune system, which is of vital importance for thedisease resistance of fish and is divided into physical barriers,

humoral and cellular components. Innate humoral parame-

ters include antimicrobial peptides, lysozyme, complement

components, transferring, pentraxins, lectins, antiproteases

and natural antibodies, whereas nonspecific cytotoxic cells

and phagocytes constitute innate cellular immune effectors.

Cytokines are an integral component of the adaptive and

innate immune response, particularly IL-1b, interferon, tumor

necrosis factor-a, transforming growth factor-b and several

cehmokines regulate innate immunity.44 The nonspecific

immune system can be stimulated by probiotics. It has been

demonstrated that oral administration of Clostridium butyr-

icumbacteria to rainbow trout enhanced the resistance of fishto vibriosis, by increasing the phagocytic activity of leuco-

cytes. Rengpipat et al, 20007 mentioned that the use ofBacillus

sp. (strain S11) provided disease protection by activating both

cellular and humoral immune defenses in tiger shrimp

(Penaeus monodon). Balcazar, 200345 demonstrated that the

administration of a mixture of bacterial strains (Bacillus and

Vibrio sp.) positively influenced the growth and survival of

juveniles of white shrimp and presented a protective effect

against the immune system, by increasing phagocytosis and

antibacterial activity.

5.4. Antiviral effects

Some bacteria used as candidate probiotics have antiviral ef-

fects. Although the exact mechanism by which these bacteria

exerts its antiviral effects is not known, laboratory tests in-

dicates that the inactivation of viruses can occur by chemical

and biological substances, such as extracts from marine algae

and extracellular agents of bacteria. It has been reported that

strains of Pseudomonas sp., Vibrio sp., Aeromonas sp., and

groups of coryneforms isolated from salmonid hatcheries,

showed antiviral activity against infectious hematopoietic

necrosis virus (IHNV) with more than 50% plaque reduction.46

Girones et al, 198947 reported that a marine bacterium,

tentatively classified in the genusMoraxella, showed antiviral

activity against poliovirus. Direkbusarakim et al, 199848 iso-lated two strains of Vibrio spp. from a black tiger shrimp

hatchery. These isolates displayed antiviral activities against

IHNV andOncorhynchus masou virus (OMV), with percentages

of plaque reduction between 62 and 99%, respectively.

6. Safety regulation

The safety profile of a potential probiotic strain is of critical

importance in the selection process. This testing should

include the determination of strain resistance to a wide vari-

ety of common classes of antibiotics such as tetracyclines,

quinolones and macrolides and subsequent confirmation of

Table 1 e List of microorganism authorized as probioticsin feeding stuffs under Council Directive 70/524/EEC.

S. no. Probiotic organism

1. Bacillus cereusvar. toyoi

2. Bacillus licheniformis

3. Bacillus subtilis

4. Enterococcus faecium5. Lactobacillus casei

6. Lactobacillus farciminis

7. Lactobacillus plantarum

8. Lactobacillus rhamnosus

9. Pediococcus acidilactici

10. Saccharomyces cerevisiae

11. Streptococcus infantarius

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 9 57
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003


4/5

non-transmission of drug resistance genes or virulence plas-

mids.49 Evaluation should also take the end-product formu-

lation into consideration because this can induce adverse

effects in some subjects or negate the positive effects alto-

gether. A better understanding of the potential mechanisms

whereby probiotic organisms might cause adverse effects will

help to develop effective assays that predict which strains

might not be suitable for use in probiotic products. Further-more, modern molecular techniques should be applied to

ensure that the species of probiotics used in aquaculture are

correctly identified, for quality assurance as well as safety.

7. Discussion

The application of probiotics in aquaculture shows promise,

but needs considerable efforts of research. However, a num-

ber of probiotic products have been thoroughly researched,

and evidenced their efficacy a possible use on aquaculture.

Beneficial bacterial preparations that are species-specific

probiotics have become more widely available to the aqua-

culture community. These preparations show specific bene-

ficial effect as disease prevention and offer a natural element

to obtain a stable healthy gut environment and immune sys-

tem. The establishing of strong disease prevention program,

including probiotic and good management practice can be

beneficial to raise aquatic organism production.

8. Conclusion

The application of probiotics in aquaculture shows promise,

but needs considerable efforts of research. It is essential tounderstand the mechanisms of action in order to define se-

lection criteria for potential probiotics. Therefore, more in-

formation on the host/microbe interactions in vivo, and

development of monitoring tools (e.g. molecular biology) are

still needed for better understanding of the composition and

functions of the indigenous microbiota, as well as of microbial

cultures of probiotics. The use of probiotics is an important

management tool, but its efficiency depends on understand-

ing the nature of competition between species or strains.

Conflicts of interest

All authors have none to declare.

Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (F1-

17.1/2011-12/RGNF-SC-TAM-1686/(SA-III Website)) University

Grant Commission, Government of India, New Delhi for the

financial support and sincere thanks and gratitude to Prof. Dr.

T. Balasubramanian, Dean and Director, CAS in Marine

Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Annamalai University,

Parangipettai for the necessary facilities provided.

r e f e r e n c e s

1. Subasinghe RP, Curry D, McGladdery SE, Bartley D. Recenttechnological innovations in aquaculture. In: Review of theState of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular; 2003:59e74.

2. Bondad-Reantaso MG, Subasinghe RP, Arthur JR, et al. Disease

and health management in Asian aquaculture. Vet Parasitol.2005;132:249e272.3. Cabello FC. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in

aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal healthand for the environment.Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:1137e1144.

4. Sorum H. Antimicrobial drug resistance in fish pathogens. In:Aarestrup FM, ed. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria of AnimalOrigin. Washington DC: ASM Press; 2006:213e238.

5. FAO. In: Serrano PH, ed.Responsible Use of Antibiotics inAquaculture. Rome: FAO; 2005:98. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper 469.

6. Denev SA. Ecological Alternatives of Antibiotic Growth Promotersin the Animal Husbandry and Aquaculture. DSc. Thesis. StaraZagora, Bulgaria: Department of Biochemistry Microbiology,Trakia University; 2008. 294.

7. Rengpipat S, Rukpratanporn S, Piyatiratitivorakul S,Menasaveta P. Immunity enhancement in black tiger shrimp(Penaeus monodon) by probiotic bacterium (BacillusS11).Aquaculture. 2000;191:271e288.

8. Paningrahi A, Azad IS. Microbial intervention for better fishhealth in aquaculture: the Indian scenario. Fish PhysiolBiochem. 2007;33:429e440.

9. Parker RB. Probiotics, the other half of the antibiotics story.Anim Nutr Health. 1974;29:4e8.

10. Fuller R. Probiotic in man and animals.J Appl Bacteriol.1989;66:365e378.

11. Kozasa M. Toyocerin (Bacillus toyoi) as growth promotor foranimal feeding. Microbiol Aliment Nutr. 1986;4:121e135.

12. Moriarty DJW. Control of luminous Vibriospecies in penaeidaquaculture ponds.Aquaculture. 1998;164:351e358.

13. Wang YB, Xu ZR. Effect of probiotics for common carp(Cyprinus carpio) based on growth performance and digestiveenzyme activities. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2006;127:283e292.

14. Vine NG, Leukes WD, Kaiser H. Probiotics in marinelarviculture.FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2006;30:404e427.

15. Huis int Veld JHJ, Havenaar R, Marteau PH. Establishing ascientific basis for probiotic R&D.Tibtech. 1994;12:6e8.

16. Oelschlarger TA. Mechanisms of probiotic actions e a review.Int J Med Microbiol. 2010;300:57e62.

17. Wolf G. Gut microbiota: a factor in energy regulation.NutrRev. 2006;64:47e50.

18. Ouwehand AC, Salminen S, Isolauri E. Probiotics: anoverview of beneficial effects. Antonie Van Leewenhoek.2002;82:279e289.

19. Sullivan A, Nord CE. The place of probiotics in human

intestinal infections.Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002;20:313e319.20. Senok AC, Ismaeel AY, Botta GA. Probiotics: facts and myths.Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11(12):958e966.

21. Ringo E, Gatesoupe FJ. Lactic acid bacteria in fish: a review.Aquaculture. 1998;160:177e203.

22. Hagi T, Tanaka D, Iwamura Y, Hoshino T. Diversity andseasonal changes in lactic acid bacteria in the intestinal tractof cultured freshwater fish.Aquaculture. 2004;234:335e346.

23. Klewicki R, Klewicka E. Antagonistic activity of lactic acidbacteria as probiotics against selected bacteria of theEnterobaceriacae family in the presence of polyols and theirgalactosyl derivatives. Biotechnol Lett. 2004;26:317e320.

24. Corcoran BM, Ross RP, Fitzgerald GF, Stanton C.Comparative survival of probiotic lactobacilli spray-dried inthe presence of probiotic substances. J Appl Microbiol.

2004;96:1024e1039.

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 958


5/5

25. Ross RP, Desmond C, Fitzgerald GF, Stanton C. Overcomingthe technological hurdles in the development of probioticfoods.J Appl Microbiol. 2005;98:1410e1417.

26. Cherif A, Ouzari H, Daffonchio D, et al. Thuricin 7: a novelbacteriocin produced byBacillus thuringiensis BMG1.7, a newstrain isolated from soil. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2001;32:243e247.

27. Cladera-Olivera F, Caron GR, Brandelli A. Bacteriocin-likesubstance production byBacillus licheniformis strain P40. Lett

Appl Microbiol. 2004;38:251e256.28. Duc LH, Hong HA, Barbosa TM, Henriques AO, Cutting SM.

Characterization ofBacillusprobiotics available for humanuse. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70(4):2161e2171.

29. Barbosa TM, Serra CR, La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ,Henriques AO. Screening forBacillusisolates in the broilergastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol.2005;71(2):968e978.

30. Gournier-Chateau N, Larpent JP, Castellanos I, Larpent JL.LesProbiotiques en Alimentation Animale et Humaine. Paris:Technique et Documentation Lavoisier; 1994. 192.

31. Clements KD. Fermentation and gastrointestinalmicroorganisms in fishes. In: Mackie RI, Withe BA,Isaacson RE, eds. Gastrointestinal Microbiology. New York:International Thomson Publishing.; 1997:156e198.

Gastrointestinal Ecosystems and Fermentations. Chapman &Hall Microbiology Series; vol. 1.

32. Moriarty DJW. Interactions of microorganisms and aquaticanimals, particularly the nutritional role of the gut flora. In:Lesel R, ed.Microbiology in Poecilotherms. Amsterdam: Elsevier;1990:217e222.

33. Sakata T. Microflora in the digestive tract of fish and shell-fish. In: Lesel R, ed. Microbiology in Poecilotherms. Amsterdam:Elsevier; 1990:171e176.

34. Prieur D, Mevel G, Nicolas JL, Plusquellec A, Vigneulle M.Interactions between bivalve molluscs and bacteria in themarine environment.Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev.1990;28:277e352.

35. Hong HA, Duc LH, Cutting SM. The use of bacterial sporeformers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2005;29:813e835.

36. Ringo E, Vadstein O. Colonization ofVibrio pelagiusandAeromonas caviaein early developing turbot (ScophtalmusmaximusL.) larvae.J Appl Microbiol. 1998;84:227e233.

37. Gram L, Melchiorsen J. Interaction between fish spoilagebacteriaPseudomonassp. and Shewanella putrefaciensin fishextracts and on fish tissue.J Appl Bacteriol. 1996;80:589e595.

38. Ali A.Probiotic in Fish Farming-Evaluation of a Candidate BacterialMixture. Umea, Senegal: Sveriges Lantbruks Universitet; 2000.

39. Olsson JC, Westerdahk A, Conway PL, Kjelleberg S. Intestinalcolonization potential of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) anddab (Limanda limanda) associated bacteria with inhibitory

effects againstVibrio anguillarum. Appl Environ Microbiol.1992;58:551e556.

40. Perdigon G, Alvarez S, Rachid M, Aguero G, Gobbato N.Probiotic bacteria for humans: clinical systems for evaluationof effectiveness: immune system stimulation by probiotics. JDairy Sc. 1995;78:1597e1606.

41. Salyers AA, White DD. Bacterial Pathogenesis, a MolecularApproach. Washington D. C: ASM Press; 2002.

42. Westerdahl A, Olsson J, Kjelleberg S, Conway P. Isolation andcharacterization of turbot (Schophthalmus maximus) associatedbacteria with inhibitory effects against Vibrio anguillarum.Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991;57:2223e2228.

43. Balcazar JL, Vendrell D, De Blas I, Cunninghem D, Vandrell D,Muzquiz JL. The role of probiotic in aquaculture. Vet Microbiol.2006;114:173e186.

44. Gomez GD, Balcazar JL. A review on the interactions betweengut microbiota and innate immunity of fish.FEMS ImmunolMed Microbiol. 2008;52:145e154.

45. Balcazar JL.Evaluation of Probiotic Bacterial Strains inLitopenaeus Vannamei: Final Report. Guayaquil, Ecuador:National Center for Marine and Aquaculture Research; 2003.

46. Kamei Y, Yoshimizu M, Ezura Y, Kimura T. Screening ofbacteria with antiviral activity from fresh water salmonidhatcheries.Microbiol Immunol. 1988;32:67e73.

47. Girones R, Jofre JT, Bosch A. Isolation of marine bacteria withantiviral properties.Can J Microbiol. 1989;35:1015e1021.

48. Direkbusarakom S, Yoshimizu M, Ezura Y, Ruangpan L,Danayadol Y.Vibriospp. the dominant flora in shrimphatchery against some fish pathogenic viruses.J MarBiotechnol. 1998;6:266e267.

49. Moubareck C, Gavini F, Vaugien L, Butel M, Doucer-Popularie F. Antimicrobial susceptibility ofBifidobacteria. JAntimicrob Chemother. 2005;55:38e44.

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 9 59

probiotics in aquaculture (sciverse sciencedirect)

Documents