Please explain "Immunity" in regards to ich

[3FordFamily]

Bill now I know why I got an infraction the other day - You disagree with me!

You used some of the same fallacies as your predecessor. I would produce biased results which is one of the very things I am saying affects the actual validity of many scientific studies.

I'm not going to spend the time to repeat myself, you can read. You nor I know the exact methodology used for any of those studies. That's my point sir.

 

[rwb500]

Is there a study on "Acquired Immunity to Dinoflagellate (or Protozoan) Parasites in Closed Marine Environments"? Something authored in the last 10 years would be great. Peer reviewed would be better. Anyone?

5 seconds of googling - study about freshwater ich from 1974. no need for anything more recent than that for this simple of a study. 4th graders could do this experiment.

"Mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) infected with sublethal doses of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, were free of parasites 21 days after infection. Fish remained free of parasites for at least 8 months when maintained in an infective environment. Such fish were refractory to reinfection with numbers of parasites that killed all normal, previously unexposed fish. Serum from fish recovered from previous infections with sublethal doses of parasites, immobilized free-swimming stages of I. multifiliis to a dilution of up to 1: 1024. The rise in serum-immobilization titre occurred between the 10th and 22nd days of infection, the period during which parasites disappeared from the body surface of the fish. Infective stages of the parasite were unable to penetrate the mucus body covering of resistant fish."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1974.tb04554.x/abstract

 

[rwb500]

just for the record - I don't agree with 3FordFamily about pretty much anything he said. It's not worth my time to explain why. Anyone who understands science already knows.

 

[reefgeezer]

5 seconds of googling - study about freshwater ich from 1974.

Sorry... I was wondering if the scientific studies mentioned were done more recently, in a closed marine system, with sensitive marine specimens, & etc. I suppose there is something that can be deduced from a 40 year old study of a tough freshwater species. I might be a little smarter than a 4th grader most of the time but I'm not a scientist. I am smart enough to know that my ability to analyze, comprehend, and determine the appropriate actions from scientific studies is limited. I have to ask a lot of questions.

 

[rwb500]

i was not comparing you to a 4th grader at all! thats not what I meant. I simply meant that the age of the study should not be a concern, because it is so simple. If anything, the age of that study should give it more reliability, because they had fewer methods available, and could only detect relatively strong deviations from the null hypothesis (low statistical power).

We cannot expect recent research in such simple topics. If 40 years ago they could prove that fish have acquired immune responses, all of the recent literature is going to take that for granted, and delve into more specific questions. what you are asking for is a like a 5 year-old paper proving the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. we have been past that for quite some time.

 

[billsreef]

Bill now I know why I got an infraction the other day - You disagree with me!

If that was the reason, I would have burned out the infraction button ages ago

I would produce biased results which is one of the very things I am saying affects the actual validity of many scientific studies.

You should really read some good scientific papers. The discussion section in particular, which is were good researchers will talk about the possible biases, things that need to be looked into more (good research often raises more questions), possible errors or problems in their methods...essentially a good self critique. Not to mention, one can certainly look at the data presented and methods used and come to their own conclusions...either agreeing or disagreeing with the authors, which is often what leads to others trying to duplicate the results. As for emotional bias (which seems to the sort your talking about) skewing results, that is actually pretty rare. It is not unusual to see a researcher do an experiment thinking they are going to confirm a hypothesis, only to get eye opening results that prove the exact opposite...or something even entirely different and unexpected. In the case of researchers such as Colorni et al., they would have loved nothing better than to have proved your take as the correct one....than they could have successfully gone on to the next step of developing a vaccine for these pesky parasites, something that would be worth a small fortune to the aquaculture industry. So really, if there was any bias, it would be on your side of the argument...yet the science has come out against it.

You nor I know the exact methodology used for any of those studies. That's my point sir.

Once again, read the papers. It's all in the "Methods" section. A well written peer reviewed research paper will go into sufficient detail for any other research to analyze thier methods and duplicate them. On the point of analyzing the methods used, it's rather easy for researchers in the particular field to look at them and see if they make sense as methods that would work. And yes, sometimes we science types read a paper and disagree with it.

 

[MondoBongo]

Is there a study on "Acquired Immunity to Dinoflagellate (or Protozoan) Parasites in Closed Marine Environments"? Something authored in the last 10 years would be great. Peer reviewed would be better. Anyone?

yes! this paper is from 2007.

http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...MoATAA&usg=AFQjCNFkMlUcMrsnSXSr9W3A1ZhbfITSIg

This suggests that elicitation of grouper immune response to C. irritans requires 7 - 14 days. Antibody titres peaked between Weeks 4 and 6 and decreased at Week 8.

In this study, the highest immobilisation titres of immune grouper fish serum and skin supernatant were 80 and 8, respectively, which are much lower than those (3600 and 179, respectively) of catfish against I. multifiliis with similar immunisation dose [20]. High immobilisation was not achieved even when rabbit anti-C. irritans serum was used (data not shown). The first possible explanation for the low immobilisation titre of grouper fish to C. irritans is that the immobilisation antigens in the surface of C. irritans are not as abundant as in that of I. multifiliis, or the immunogenicities of surface proteins of C. irritans are not as strong as that of I. multifiliis. Another possible explanation is that fish have also developed good immune response to C. irritans, but their antibodies could not stop the beating of cilia of C. irritans theronts as easily as that of I. multifiliis because its theronts swim faster (an average of 780 um s-1, unpublished data) than its freshwater counterpart and its cilia may beat more strongly.

2008:
http://scsagr.scsfri.ac.cn/upimg/2008427125141.pdf

Table 3 shows the results of immobilization assays using sera from ten different fish species. Only sera of the yellow spotted grunt and the orange-spotted grouper immobilized C. irritans theronts (Table 3). Immobilization and lysis were observed using video-microscopy. Before serum was added, theronts swam quickly, and their cilia moved rapidly and rhythmically. After the addition of sera, swimming of theronts began to slow down and their cilia clumped together (Fig. 1a and b). Cells incubated in sera became round and eventually lysed (Fig. 1c). Theronts incubated with negative serum or physiological saline survived for
more than 12 h.

In this study, it is found that infection intensity of C. irritans infection varied in different fish species, and snubnose pompano (T. blochii) was the most heavily infected fish. Different host may have different susceptibility to C. irritans. We are not sure if our data reflects this variation because this was a field investigation, and many factors in the wild may affect the results. But we are confident that snubnose pompano is very susceptible to this parasite, and it has been successfully used as an experimental host to propagate C. irritans in our laboratory (Dan et al. 2006).

2006:
http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/161524/1/29.pdf

To conclude, the response of immunized grouper E. coioides either by exposure to C. irritans theronts or injection of formalin-killed C. irritans suggests that an acquired protective immunity had been conferred. The evidences included higher antibody titers in the mucus of the exposure-immunized fish and higher fish survival and fewer trophonts and tomonts in the vaccine immunized fish than the control groups. The antibody titers increased with an increase in the number of parasite used in the exposure. The antibodies from the skin of the fish may have prevented the adhesion, invasion and development of C. irritans theronts; those that developed were fewer or even smaller than the control. Cellular immunity may play a role in the defense of fish but the antibodies appear vital in providing a complete protection of grouper against C. irritans.

2008:
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...5BB78C52.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2121584

Serum from fish immunized with C. irritans theronts had agglutination/immobilization activity against theronts in vitro. However, fish and rabbit antisera raised against serotype G32 (reported previously) caused little agglutination/immobilization of serotype G37 theronts.

2012:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile..._irritans)/links/02e7e5269ed05eb1e2000000.pdf

Fish were re-exposed to parasites (10 K theronts per fish for all groups) 28 days after the primary exposure in order to examine
the effect of infective doses on the immune protection. When fish were primarily exposed to and recovered from C. irritans infection, these immunized fish developed complete protection against the secondary exposure irrespective of initial parasite dose (Table 1; group 2"“7). However, 0.9±0.2 trophonts per pectoral fin were detected from fish that primarily received the lowest dose (0.3 K) although the number of trophont was much lower than the primary number of trophont (24.83±1.79 trophonts per a pectoral fin) at a dose of 10 K theronts per fish. No parasites were found in fish without the secondary exposure (Table 1; group 8 through 14).

Duration of immunological memory seemed not to be dependent on infectious doses with the primary exposure. High levels of immobilization activity and specific antibodies against the 28 kD antigen were produced 21 days after initial exposure at all dose levels. However, the apparent decreases in immobilization titres and the specific antibody levels were observed in fish that were not reexposed to C. irritans for 49 days after the initial exposure (Fig. 7). The decline in immobilization titres and the specific antibody level in those fish probably resulted from a loss of antigenic stimulus. Very similar results were obtained by Luo et al. (2007) using grouper (Epinephelus coioides).

unfortunately what i am having trouble finding are more recent studies on the long term immunity, or lack thereof, that exposure confers.

my conclusions are:

1. fish can develop forms immunity
2. different species of fish have different reactions to the parasite(s)
3. mortality rates are effected by a number of factors
4. different strains of ich respond differently to the immune response
5. fish with immunity can still act as a carrier for trophonts, even if asymptomatic
6. immunity DOES decrease over time, however the specifics of the decrease need further study (or i just need to find the articles about them!)

cheers.

 

[reefgeezer]

yes! this paper is from 2007...

Thanks. Nicely organized and your conclusions seem reasonable based on the data you presented. I appreciate the time you spent to answer my question.

Maybe someday there will be a viable vaccine or something that will prevent Ich and other parasitic infestations, and make all of our lives easier.

 

[MondoBongo]

Thanks. Nicely organized and your conclusions seem reasonable based on the data you presented. I appreciate the time you spent to answer my question.

Maybe someday there will be a viable vaccine or something that will prevent Ich and other parasitic infestations, and make all of our lives easier.

hey no problem, i got to read some very interesting material to do it, that's why i love this kind of stuff.

i have to think that with the economic impact of these diseases, it only makes sense that people would be working towards a viable vaccine. it would be wonderful if, at some point, that made its way down to the hobbyist level.

 

[3FordFamily]

Good reads that don't refute what I said. They don't confirm either. At the end of the day everyone acts like knee jerk stressful reactions are the ONLY option. They're not.

 

[MondoBongo]

Good reads that don't refute what I said. They don't confirm either. At the end of the day everyone acts like knee jerk stressful reactions are the ONLY option. They're not.

now who is the one who needs to last word? :lmao:

the reason they don't support or refute what you said before is, and this may shock you, they have nothing to do with anything you posted.

your claims were already addressed by multiple posters, in multiple ways. the preceding was in direct response to someone else.

 

[albano]

now who is the one who needs to last word? :lmao:

the reason they don't support or refute what you said before is, and this may shock you, they have nothing to do with anything you posted.

With his over 500 posts in less than 30 days, did you expect to get the 'last word'?

 

[Fade2White12]

With his over 500 posts in less than 30 days, did you expect to get the 'last word'?

I have about half that in 7.5 years.

 

[hart24601]

yes! this paper is from 2007.

http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...MoATAA&usg=AFQjCNFkMlUcMrsnSXSr9W3A1ZhbfITSIg





2008:
http://scsagr.scsfri.ac.cn/upimg/2008427125141.pdf





2006:
http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/161524/1/29.pdf




2008:
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...5BB78C52.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2121584




2012:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile..._irritans)/links/02e7e5269ed05eb1e2000000.pdf






unfortunately what i am having trouble finding are more recent studies on the long term immunity, or lack thereof, that exposure confers.

my conclusions are:

1. fish can develop forms immunity
2. different species of fish have different reactions to the parasite(s)
3. mortality rates are effected by a number of factors
4. different strains of ich respond differently to the immune response
5. fish with immunity can still act as a carrier for trophonts, even if asymptomatic
6. immunity DOES decrease over time, however the specifics of the decrease need further study (or i just need to find the articles about them!)

cheers.

Wow, this is good stuff. Shermanator, does this change your opinion at all about ich and immunity? Since you teach immunology what do you think about the papers listed?

 

[snorvich]

with his over 500 posts in less than 30 days, did you expect to get the 'last word'?

rotflmao :spin3: Also, for those truly interested in peer reviewed papers, Google Scholar will provide lots of good information, some for free, some for cost.

 

[rwb500]

great references that simply support the notion that fish have acquired immune systems just like ours.

Good reads that don't refute what I said. They don't confirm either. At the end of the day everyone acts like knee jerk stressful reactions are the ONLY option. They're not.

you are no longer part of the conversation. you have clearly demonstrated the lack of desire or ability to participate in a scientific conversation.

 

[snorvich]

Using Google Scholar and the search term "cryptocaryon irritans immunity" you can get a wealth of information if you are truly interested. They allow refinement by date if so desired. Papers always have a methodology description which is sort of a requirement for peer reviewed papers.

 

[Paul B]

Bill knows I disagree with him on this which is why it is so much fun to post. But I will post it just for fun as I did before. :lol2:
People love to quote scientific studies, link to trials and studies by researchers who studied this in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
But those studies all have one thing in common. None of those researchers keep a fish tank. They have microscopes, assistants, Government grants and more degrees than a thermometer, but no fish tanks except the one they keep in the lab. That is the one they learn about things such as parasites on. That tank was set up last Tuesday and it will be taken down in 6 weeks when the research money runs out and it will be used for turtles or to grow tomatoes. I can say my fish are immune because my tank is way older than even those researchers, (who probably keep those little green turtles in those plastic tanks with the plastic palm tree in it) Those researchers can not, and will not try to say why my fish do not get ich. They just don't know as it goes against their professors teachings. I know why and I only have a 100 year old microscope, but I also have something else. Or at least I don't have something else, and that thing is a college degree. Not having that degree allows me to think outside the box, not just right outside, or a few feet away from the box, but all the way on the next block. I know why, and my fish know why they don't get ich or anything else. They don't care about the life cycle of the parasite or the temperature in which it turns into tomites. They just don't care. What they do care about is not getting sick. And in my 60 years of keeping fish, I have found out an easy way to achieve that. Bill knows but he doesn't agree with me because he is sitting down there in Miami enjoying the sun while I am here shoveling snow and looking at my perfectly healthy tank in which I just added two shrimpfish today. Parasites or not, it doesn't matter. In 7 years my very healthy tank will turn fifty years old. I am not a genius, but I think that trumps all the scientific studies on how to cure or better yet, prevent ich. I never have to cure it, because my fish don't get it. This is never taken well here which is why I am writing a book that Bill will never read. But Bill, I still love you and enjoy these "discussions" Wear a hat because you are a little thin on top and your head is burning. :wavehand:

(Bill is going to quote me all sorts of studies now, I can't wait, right now he is cleaning krill guts from the deck of a research boat)

 

[Reef Frog]

QUESTION 1
Regarding marine ich, I've always wondered what is the exact mechanism of death. For example, a mosquito bite doesn't kill, but the malaria parasite does. So in fish, does this parasite do something like draw out enough blood volume or blood sugar or disolved oxygen in the blood to kill the fish? Or does it corrupt vital organs by physically eating tissue, prey on gut contents thereby starving the fish? Does it release a poison or even perhaps a viral, bacterial or protozoan that actually does the killing? Ive read about ich in the gills, but is that all there is to it? Is there any agreement on the "root cause" of death? I've only skimmed a handful of scientific studies but don't recall seeing this discussed.

Also, are there any known bio controls or micro predators for ich in the ocean? (Something besides cleaner shrimp & fish). Something must prey on it.

QUESTION 2
I vaugely recall reading an interesting statement in the RC Fish Disease forum several years ago when researching & treating a Royal Gramma for Ich. I can't find it now but it went something like this (all paraphrased from memory so kindly excuse any inaccuracies):

In an aquarium that has had no new additions of fish or anything else that might introduce NEW individual parasites, it seems that the (virulence or perhaps numbers ?) of the parasites drops over time. After 11 breeding cycles, the (population) declines by X%. By Y breeding cycles it drops to Z (or maybe dies off entirely?)

I have no remembrance if this was anecdote, rumor or an accurate fragment from a legitimate study from the world of aquatic science, but that was the jist of it. It was intriguing, as it seems to be plausible at least. There are lots of examples of population damage, decline & even total destruction of isolated populations that are denied genetic diversity in other realms of the animal kingdom. Anyone know anything about this?

 

[billsreef]

you are no longer part of the conversation. you have clearly demonstrated the lack of desire or ability to participate in a scientific conversation.

Unfortunately he didn't learn from that infraction I had to give him in the lounge, and he ran afoul of several other moderators to point of going bye bye.

Bill knows I disagree with him on this which is why it is so much fun to post. But I will post it just for fun as I did before. :lol2:

:uzi: :lol:

People love to quote scientific studies, link to trials and studies by researchers who studied this in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

And 80's, 90's, 00's and 10's

But those studies all have one thing in common. None of those researchers keep a fish tank.

I'm curious, how do you know this? I don't personally know the researchers in the links Mondo provided (though I'm familiar with the research) and therefore have no idea if they have their own personal tanks or not. As for the researchers I've known (the ones with more degrees with thermometers), a number of them keep personal fish tanks. It's actually fairly common. My current boss (and director of the marine science program here) is bona fide fish head that even worked in an LFS in his younger days. My old boss back at Stony Brook, while not keeping a fish tank, certainly knew his way around a proper aquaculture set up, wasn't afraid of getting his hands dirty with actual fish keeping, ran multi year experiments (one lasting just over 10 years)...which also lead to him truly appreciating the value of having someone run his lab that knew what they were doing (aka me )

Bill knows but he doesn't agree with me because he is sitting down there in Miami enjoying the sun while I am here shoveling snow

It was 86 F today

But Bill, I still love you and enjoy these "discussions" Wear a hat because you are a little thin on top and your head is burning. :wavehand:

No worries, I always wear a hat to keep the top of my head from burning.

Especially while enjoying the Florida sunshine while out on the boat

(Bill is going to quote me all sorts of studies now, I can't wait, right now he is cleaning krill guts from the deck of a research boat)

Nah, Mondo covered the studies pretty well.

As for the deck, it was worse than krill guts, though less smelly. Sand. I hate sand on the deck. But I've got a group of students that are doing a study on a small island out in the bay, so I get to drop them and their equipment on the beach, then pick them back up...all full of sand :fun5: