A lot of known people dont QUARANTINE!!!

[MnFish1]

A pathogen - of any form - is not equal with a disease. This is a very famous pictures that in a scientific way describe the relationship.

​

What Paul B says is that in spite of the fact that he had introduce pathogens - there was no disease that break out.



IMO - to medicate fish when not necessary is as cany disease even if there is pathogens in the aquarium. He says that he have introduced many parasites - however an E-DNA analyse could not see any trace of parasites in his aquarium. Neither could it been shown in my aquaria but I have - not as I know - introduce any. How does this comes?

The microbiome analyse of my aquarium shows that I have one known fish pathogen bacteria in my aquarium - but not any signs of a disease - how it comes?

Sincerely Lasse

Good question - but another poster states his 'method' is to routinely add pathogens into his tank to maintain immunity - yet - none show up. Thats Lalso a conundrum. IMHO

 

[MnFish1]

There are studies out there showing that CI is often infecting large numbers/percentages of fish on the reef. Fish on the reef also die from these parasites - there is no reason to expect that fish in a tank will do any better. Thats the science.

 

[Righteous]

Thanks Google it... its not even a debate.

I have, and I can’t find any specifics especially as relate to our hobby. To be specific; the question was; given a percentage of known parasites in an aquarium, and given specific levels of measured immunity, what are the outcomes.

If you have that data, please share as it would be immensely informative.

Here’s the most pertinent research I could find. It shows aquired immunity of fish in an aquarium to hookworm infections. However it doesn’t specifically measure immune markers such as antibodies etc, only outcomes. And it doesn’t attempt to discover if there’s a point at which acquired immunity can prevent infection at low levels of parasite load.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2761.1986.tb01032.x

Here are some other studies I found that may be of interest.

Fish immunity and parasite infections: from innate immunity to immunoprophylactic prospects - PubMed

The increasing economic importance of fish parasitoses for aquaculture and fisheries has enhanced the interest in the defence mechanisms against these infections. Both innate and adaptive immune responses are mounted by fish to control parasite infections, and several mechanisms described for...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Living off a fish: a trade-off between parasites and the immune system - PubMed

Research in fish immune system and parasite invasion mechanisms has advanced the knowledge of the mechanisms whereby parasites evade or cope with fish immune response. The main mechanisms of immune evasion employed by fish parasites are reviewed and considered under ten headings. 1) Parasite...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Assessment of acquired protection levels against the parasite Neobenedenia girellae (Monogenea) between body surface sites including fins of amberjack Seriola dumerili (Carangidae) and the skin in response to the parasite infection

This study investigated acquired protection against the parasite Neobenedenia girellae (Capsalidae) at multiple body surface sites and fins of the amb…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Righteous]

There are studies out there showing that CI is often infecting large numbers/percentages of fish on the reef. Fish on the reef also die from these parasites - there is no reason to expect that fish in a tank will do any better. Thats the science.

Not trying to be contrarian here, just I find data and references useful, which is why I ask, not that I don’t believe you (then I can compile a list and refer people to things). I do also google both scholar and this site for references, but finding stuff can be hard hence why I ask.

Here’s a study I did find that talks about CI on some reef fish. It does support that large numbers can be infected (in this case sand drums) , but it instead says CI seldom causes fish injury.

https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8667(1994)006%3C0360:DCBTSA%3E2.3.CO;2

 

[Lasse]

Good question - but another poster states his 'method' is to routinely add pathogens into his tank to maintain immunity - yet - none show up. Thats Lalso a conundrum. IMHO

It means that Paul B with his parasites and I with the bacteria are in the red area - it means that if the environment change ar/and the pathogens strength increase or/and the fish defence decrease we will have a disease. Changes in environment is water chemistry, social reactions, light and other environmental factors. Change in the pathogen strength is mostly number: change in fish defence is energy and immune system decrease (stress).

There are studies out there showing that CI is often infecting large numbers/percentages of fish on the reef. Fish on the reef also die from these parasites - there is no reason to expect that fish in a tank will do any better. Thats the science.

Do you have any links here

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jay Hemdal]

It means that Paul B with his parasites and I with the bacteria are in the red area - it means that if the environment change ar/and the pathogens strength increase or/and the fish defence decrease we will have a disease. Changes in environment is water chemistry, social reactions, light and other environmental factors. Change in the pathogen strength is mostly number: change in fish defence is energy and immune system decrease (stress).

Do you have any links here

Sincerely Lasse

Lasse, I think you may misunderstand that Venn diagram. The area in red does not mean the fish and pathogen are existing together with no expression of disease, only that the chance of disease development is less. You do not have to have all three circles overlap for disease to show up. The only 100% good state is the area to the left where it says host. The area below that shows problems with the environment with no disease….etc
Jay

 

[Lasse]

Lasse, I think you may misunderstand that Venn diagram.

I do not think so. All fish epidism I have talking to during my lifetime have the same conclusion as I state - all three needs to overlap if a disease should break out. Consequently - if a disease break out - all will automatically overlap by definition. The diagram have been used for many years in disease education. Environmental factors is a broad variable in this case.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I do not think so. All fish epidism I have talking to during my lifetime have the same conclusion as I state - all three needs to overlap if a disease should break out. Consequently - if a disease break out - all will automatically overlap by definition. The diagram have been used for many years in disease education. Environmental factors is a broad variable in this case.

Sincerely Lasse

Sorry - that simply isn't how that diagram works. It only shows that where all three conditions overlap, there is a greater chance for disease. The only condition where disease is not possible is at the point H. The H/E intersection describes environmental problems in the absence of any disease. P/E overlap shows a tank that needs to lay fallow. Clinical disease is more likely at the intersection of all three points, but is also quite possible at the H/P overlap.

Jay

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Jay, are most of the displays you help to populate artificial reef inserts? I am asking because that seems to be the majority of the public aquariums I visit around the country and world for that matter.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Jay, are most of the displays you help to populate artificial reef inserts? I am asking because that seems to be the majority of the public aquariums I visit around the country and world for that matter.

Yes - we have two 1500 gallon reef tanks, but the rest of the 150k gallons is fish only. That is pretty standard. Four exceptions I know of are the large reefs at Long Island Aquarium, Burger Zoo, Georgia Aquarium and California Academy of Sciences. I think those range from 20,000 to 200,000 gallons.
Jay

 

[Righteous]

Sorry - that simply isn't how that diagram works. It only shows that where all three conditions overlap, there is a greater chance for disease. The only condition where disease is not possible is at the point H. The H/E intersection describes environmental problems in the absence of any disease. P/E overlap shows a tank that needs to lay fallow. Clinical disease is more likely at the intersection of all three points, but is also quite possible at the H/P overlap.

I agree with Jay here. But I think it’s also important to note the limits of a Venn diagram on describing nature. It’s definitely informative but we have to be careful of taking it too far.

In a broad sense the diagram is correct. It is more likely when all three overlap a disease breaks out.

But, it’s very very possible for the H/P intersection to both express disease and not express disease. A novel pathogen to which a host has no prior immune defenses often results in disease, regardless of environmental factors (assuming one does not refer to the immune system of the host as environment). Likewise, many pathogens live very happily within or on a host without any disease.

HIV is very informative when looking at the interaction of pathogen and host. In the case of HIV patients, they don’t actually die from the HIV virus directly. Instead they die from opportunistic pathogens. Often these are funguses or parasites that the rest of us shrug of without noticing, or even live with most of our lives.

Here are some examples. Nearly every individual will be infected with HPV at some point in their lives. Those infections are asymptotic in 90% of cases and clear within 2 years (meaning host and pathogen are in the H/P space for 2 years)

Even more profound are the Herpes family of viruses. Some of these viruses can live within host for their lifetime without expressing disease. Chickenpox/Shingles is the best example. Here we have a H/P crossover that goes from disease expression, to none to disease expression again.

The takeaway. It’s complex! The pathogen species matters, the host species matters, the hosts immune exposure history matters. On top of that there are significant variations within species. And ultimately as the diagram hints at, yes the environment plays a role, both in how pathogens are able to survive and transmit, as well as how the environment effects the host.

 

[nereefpat]

Yes - we have two 1500 gallon reef tanks, but the rest of the 150k gallons is fish only. That is pretty standard. Four exceptions I know of are the large reefs at Long Island Aquarium, Burger Zoo, Georgia Aquarium and California Academy of Sciences. I think those range from 20,000 to 200,000 gallons.
Jay

The Scott Aquarium at the Henry Doorly Zoo has a couple reefs in the 10,000-ish gallon range. It would be such a challenge, for lots of reasons.

 

[Lasse]

Sorry - that simply isn't how that diagram works. It only shows that where all three conditions overlap, there is a greater chance for disease. The only condition where disease is not possible is at the point H. The H/E intersection describes environmental problems in the absence of any disease. P/E overlap shows a tank that needs to lay fallow. Clinical disease is more likely at the intersection of all three points, but is also quite possible at the H/P overlap.

Jay

I totally disagree - it is your interpretation of an old diagram - How in heck can you say that something in the diagram says that a tank needs to lay fallow. The diagram was original not according fish diseases - it was about general diseases in animals - including humans. It is your interpretation that only the part H is no diseases - The intersection H-P is the situation there a pathogen and host can co exist without a disease outbreak - very common among fishes there most fish pathogenic bacteria is facultative. Note the P does not stand for Parasite - it stands for Pathogen

I prefer to follow the science in this matter - expressed in this article as an example - from the article

​

If you can´t read the small text

; disease is only possible when all three factors are present and favor infection or infestation​

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Not trying to be contrarian here, just I find data and references useful, which is why I ask, not that I don’t believe you (then I can compile a list and refer people to things). I do also google both scholar and this site for references, but finding stuff can be hard hence why I ask.

Here’s a study I did find that talks about CI on some reef fish. It does support that large numbers can be infected (in this case sand drums) , but it instead says CI seldom causes fish injury.

https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8667(1994)006%3C0360:DCBTSA%3E2.3.CO;2

Here are a couple articles - that address some of the issues - that are a little more recent than some of yours. I don't think we're disagreeing that much, in general.

1. The first article discusses the prevalence of CI in Vietnam - and its seasonal variation. If you read the whole article it discusses that large die-offs of fish have occurred (I believe this is the article).

2. The second article describes how USUALLY in the wild CI is not an issue, but - that it is an issue where fish are held in high stocking density - which has been shown over and over, and when in marine aquaria. The last sentence is interesting - that they feel that CI would be even more important in the wild - except for velvet.

3. As to the question of 'levels of immunity' in 'fish in our hobby' - almost be definition this would be an impossible study to do the number of variables that would need to controlled for would be sky high. 1. Its widely known that some fish are naturally resistant to CI. If you have a tank full of those fish - the results will be different than tanks with other fish. 2. Its also well known that there is a lethal dose (LD50) of CI that will kill about 50 percent of fish. 3. Its also well known that there is both innate (slime, non-specific chemicals) as well as specific immunity (antibodies, T cells, etc) that are active in fish. Its well known that fish that survive CI have at least some immunity. 3. Its also well known that the numbers of CI present in an aquarium with average stocking density (during a period of active infection - as compared to 'there is one fish with 2 spots on it eery so often) is thousands of times higher than that in the wild. So - when you're asking a question about 'our hobby' and 'specific antibodies' thats not going to happen - but there are plenty of articles out there concerning fish that are common in the hobby, and the mortality of CI.


"Wild-caught ornamental marine fish from NhaTrang (Khanh Hoa) and Ha Long (Quang Ninh) in Vietnam were examined over the three sampling batches corresponding to the spring, summer and autumn times for the prevalence of Cryptocaryon irritans. Out of a total of 211 fish (15 species), 143 (67.7 %) were found to be infected with the mean intensity of 7.67 parasites per field of view (x4 magnification). The prevalence of C. irritans in fish caught during the spring (91.0 3% on average) was significantly higher than that of the fish caught during the summer (39.29 %). A wide variation in the prevalence of the parasite was shown among the fish species. The highest prevalence and intensity of the infection occurred in Plataxteira, Diodon holocanthus, Paracanthurus hepatusat 100 % of infection and density of 12 parasites/field of view (x4 magnification) while and the lowest prevalence of C. irritans appeared on Rhinecanthus aculeatus, Zancluscornutus, and Zebrasoma veliferum with less than 50% of fish infected. Clinical signs of fish infected of C. irritans showed such as tiny white spots on skin, gills, and fins; ragged fins, changes in skin colour, cloudy eyes and increase mucus production."

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

"The holophryid Cryptocaryon irritans could be an important pathogenic ciliate in the Gulf, but it seldom has been known to cause mortality in wild fish. It has been reported from red drum cultured in ponds in Palacios, Texas (Overstreet 1983b), and caused problems in some marine aquaria. It is the counterpart of the well-known freshwater Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, and both have a similar cycle involving feeding trophonts that inhabit the basal layer of the epithelial cells on the skin and gills, a free-living tomont, and an encysted tomont that produces tomonts, which in turn develop into infective theronts that bore through the gelatinous cyst wall and infect a variety of fishes. The histophagus trophonts feed on the epidermis. Dickerson (2006) discusses both ciliates. A few different strains of C. irritans have been differentiated. Diggles and Adlard (1997) reported sequence differences among isolates from Moreton Bay and Heron Island, Queensland, Australia; Israel; and the United States. The strain from wild fish in Moreton Bay remains unchanged with that maintained in the laboratory for over 10 years. In Queensland, Australia, when fish are brought into the laboratory aquaria, infections often build up and fish die. The ciliate was considered rare in nature until Diggles and Lester (1996b) showed with critical, sensitive examination for encysted tomonts that 13 of 14 fish species exhibited infections with no seasonality in prevalence or intensity of infection in water temperature between 15 (59 °F) and 27 °C (80 °F). They (Diggles and Lester 1996a), however, showed in experimental temperatures of 20 (68 °F) and 25 °C (77 °F) that trophonts stayed on fish longer and tomonts took longer to excyst, producing larger theronts at 20 °C (68 °F) than at 25 °C (77 °F). The host of origin played a role in tomont incubation period and tomont size. These data suggest that C. irritans might play a more important role in the health of Gulf fish, if it was not for the abundance of the equally pathogenic dinoflagellate Amyloodinium ocellatumdiscussed below."
"https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-3456-0_6"

 

[MnFish1]

It means that Paul B with his parasites and I with the bacteria are in the red area - it means that if the environment change ar/and the pathogens strength increase or/and the fish defence decrease we will have a disease. Changes in environment is water chemistry, social reactions, light and other environmental factors. Change in the pathogen strength is mostly number: change in fish defence is energy and immune system decrease (stress).

Do you have any links here

Sincerely Lasse

Sure - here is one from Vietnam (fairly recent): https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/137/1/012094

 

[MnFish1]

It means that Paul B with his parasites and I with the bacteria are in the red area - it means that if the environment change ar/and the pathogens strength increase or/and the fish defence decrease we will have a disease. Changes in environment is water chemistry, social reactions, light and other environmental factors. Change in the pathogen strength is mostly number: change in fish defence is energy and immune system decrease (stress).

Sincerely Lasse

I do not think what you're saying about Paul's tank is correct. Paul's contention is that he WANTS parasites in his tank, he adds them often, etc. Yet the genetic testing of his tank shows no parasites. So - this implies to me - that either 1) there are no parasites in his tank (i.e. he is not really adding them - i.e. they are not present in the material he is adding) or the genetic testing is flawed. or - something in his tank is killing the parasites.

So - if we are going to believe the data, presented - teh reason Paul does not have fish dying of parasites - is that there are none in his tank. Why that is the case, I don't know. But - it also goes against the 'rule/theory' that fish need to be constantly exposed to parasites to keep up 'their immunity'. If no parasites are present in Pauls tank - how is he maintaining immunity (I.e. is this really an 'immune tank') or a tank with no parasites.

 

[Paul B]

That is pretty standard. Four exceptions I know of are the large reefs at Long Island Aquarium,

That is right near my house and I am a volunteer there.

My boat is behind the place.

 

[MnFish1]

I totally disagree - it is your interpretation of an old diagram - How in heck can you say that something in the diagram says that a tank needs to lay fallow. The diagram was original not according fish diseases - it was about general diseases in animals - including humans. It is your interpretation that only the part H is no diseases - The intersection H-P is the situation there a pathogen and host can co exist without a disease outbreak - very common among fishes there most fish pathogenic bacteria is facultative. Note the P does not stand for Parasite - it stands for Pathogen

I prefer to follow the science in this matter - expressed in this article as an example - from the article

​

If you can´t read the small text


Sincerely Lasse

The comment I would make is I agree with the diagram you're presenting as you're presenting it.

But - as you said the diagram is designed to reflect 'a pathogen' as compared to 'a parasite'. And there are differences - which is why I can see how CI can be attached to fish (i.e. in the F-P area) without causing disease. However, if a more susceptible fish is added to the mix - with the environment being the same - the parasite may become a 'pathogen' - or at least allow pathogens (bacterial infection) to cause 'disease').

I guess part of this relates to one's definition of 'disease' - ie. is Obvious CI on a fish 'a disease' - or a temporary problem.

 

[MnFish1]

That is right near my house and I am a volunteer there.

My boat is behind the place.

Curious - do they add parasites to their tanks routinely to keep up immunity? Do they QT their fish. I'm only asking because I'm surprised someone who feels so strongly about how cruel QT is would volunteer at an entity that uses those methods. This isn't a trick question - I am really asking - how do they manage Disease/QT in their tanks?

 

[Lasse]

But - it also goes against the 'rule/theory' that fish need to be constantly exposed to parasites to keep up 'their immunity'. If no parasites are present in Pauls tank - how is he maintaining immunity (I.e. is this really an 'immune tank') or a tank with no parasites.

One reason can be that famous Herd immunity. The introduced parasites just not found any substrate to propagate on - and die out.

But - as you said the diagram is designed to reflect 'a pathogen' as compared to 'a parasite'. And there are differences - which is why I can see how CI can be attached to fish (i.e. in the F-P area) without causing disease. However, if a more susceptible fish is added to the mix - with the environment being the same - the parasite may become a 'pathogen' - or at least allow pathogens (bacterial infection) to cause 'disease').

In the host part it is the specific individual we talk about - if you introduce a more sensitive individual - the diagram will be different for that individual and may cause a disease for that individual. In some circumstances - if the pathogen use the sick fish as substrate for propagation - both the environment and pathogen part will be changed and a disease outbreak can take place even in individuals not affected before

Sincerely Lasse