|Appears in Collections:||Aquaculture Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Antigenic and cross-protection studies of biotype 1 and biotype 2 isolates of Yersinia ruckeri in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum)|
|Author(s):||Tinsley, John W|
Lyndon, Alastair R
|Citation:||Tinsley JW, Lyndon AR & Austin B (2011) Antigenic and cross-protection studies of biotype 1 and biotype 2 isolates of Yersinia ruckeri in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). Journal of Applied Microbiology, 111 (1), pp. 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05020.x|
|Abstract:||Aims: The study investigated antigen characteristics of biotype (bt) 1 and bt 2 isolates of Yersinia ruckeri. Methods and Results: The cell surface characteristics of Y. ruckeri were compared for their antigenic characteristics using polyclonal antibodies that revealed that both biotypes had a homogenous whole-cell protein antigenic profile. Notable differences in the antigenic properties were observed in the lipopolysaccharide profile of both biotypes. Two iron-regulated outer membrane proteins (IROMP) of c. 90 and 100 kDa were shown to be major specific antigens. The results demonstrate for the first time differences in antigens between bt 1 and bt 2 isolates of serotype O1 isolates of Y. ruckeri. The protection induced in rainbow trout by a commercial monovalent, and bivalent inactivated vaccine was tested with the outcome that the ability of isolates to cause mortality in vaccinated fish varied with geographical location. In this context, vaccination studies suggested that the O antigen was the dominant immunogenic molecule involved in protection against the disease. Conclusions: The O antigen of Y. ruckeri was the dominant immunogenic molecule involved in the protection of rainbow trout against enteric redmouth disease. Significance and Impact of the Study: There are distinct phenotypic and antigenic differences in Y. ruckeri bt 1 and bt 2 with O antigen recognized as the dominant immunogenic molecule. The data have significance in explaining the lack of success of the earlier monovalent vaccine and demonstrate the effectiveness of the newer bivalent vaccine.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Austin_2011_Antigenic_and_cross-protection_studies.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||277.58 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 3000-01-01 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.