Cryptocaryon and immunity

[MnFish1]

The third paper appears to contradict the "carriers" conclusion of the older Burgess paper quoted. In that study, immunity was 100% after a moderate infection. This would effectively break the life cycle and eradicate the parasite. The study also indicated that immunity from one strain does not infer immunity to another.
My conclusion is that there is no money in this and we are on our own to break the life cycle.

I agree with you - the wording is somewhat confusing - and you're right immunity to one strain doesn't necessarily confer immunity to another strain - but there is probably some cross reactivity. I dont remember in the first paper if it was actual 'immunityt'that was 100% or that survival was 100%.

 

[EmdeReef]

I suggest reading Burgess’ PhD dissertation, or parts of it related to immunity, to gain a better understanding. It’s too long to quote here but effectively it was shown that fish have partial strong immunity for the duration of 1.5-3 months, after acquiring it, which started to decline on the tested fish infected at 6 months. I wouldn’t call what he has done moderate infection but there are issues around theront viability...

Keep in mind that this is in a lab setting and fish were kept in isolated in hyposalinity for the tested duration. I don’t think it easily translates to our tanks.

 

[MnFish1]

I suggest reading Burgess’ PhD dissertation, or parts of it related to immunity, to gain a better understanding. It’s too long to quote here but effectively it was shown that fish have partial strong immunity for the duration of 1.5-3 months, after acquiring it, which started to decline on the tested fish infected at 6 months. I wouldn’t call what he has done moderate infection but there are issues around theront viability...

Keep in mind that this is in a lab setting and fish were kept in isolated in hyposalinity for the tested duration. I don’t think it easily translates to our tanks.

Yes - I read it - and agree - the interesting thing is that people often misquote the study - stating immunity lasts up to 6 months. They didn't continue the study past 6 months - so its impossible to know if partial immunity continues to 'drop off' or remains for years. Also - the studied fish were kept at a SG 0f 1.024.

Here are some quotes:
Mullet, which are euryhaline, were acclimated from native saline conditions (S.G. 1.004) to full seawater (SW, S.G. 1.024) over a period of two weeks, (Though they intially were caught in a lower saline water).

Very low parasite levels (%PEI S 0.'2%), indicating a high. degree of sustained immune protection, were observed in fish held for up to 3 months, with full protection being recorded in 60% at 1.5 months and 100% at 3 months. For the 2 fish held for 6 months, a relatively lower level of immune protection was apparent, with higher numbers of parasites being sustained following challenge as compared with fish held up to 3 months, and with neither fish showing full protection.

The degree of acquired immunity to C.irritans was positively related here to the number and size of exposures. Establishment of partial protection in mullet following a single exposure level of only 500 theronts suggests the existence of a critical lower threshold to elicit a protective response for this pathogen.

 

[EmdeReef]

Yes - I read it - and agree - the interesting thing is that people often misquote the study - stating immunity lasts up to 6 months. They didn't continue the study past 6 months - so its impossible to know if partial immunity continues to 'drop off' or remains for years. Also - the studied fish were kept at a SG 0f 1.024.

Here are some quotes:
Mullet, which are euryhaline, were acclimated from native saline conditions (S.G. 1.004) to full seawater (SW, S.G. 1.024) over a period of two weeks, (Though they intially were caught in a lower saline water).

Very low parasite levels (%PEI S 0.'2%), indicating a high. degree of sustained immune protection, were observed in fish held for up to 3 months, with full protection being recorded in 60% at 1.5 months and 100% at 3 months. For the 2 fish held for 6 months, a relatively lower level of immune protection was apparent, with higher numbers of parasites being sustained following challenge as compared with fish held up to 3 months, and with neither fish showing full protection.

The degree of acquired immunity to C.irritans was positively related here to the number and size of exposures. Establishment of partial protection in mullet following a single exposure level of only 500 theronts suggests the existence of a critical lower threshold to elicit a protective response for this pathogen.

I agree with you. To me the keyword is partial immunity which technically means that the cycle could continue “indefinitely” even if subclinical. When you translate that into an average reef setting, it’s a question mark if even the degree of immunity Burgess describes is possible.

 

[MnFish1]

I agree with you. To me the keyword is partial immunity which technically means that the cycle could continue “indefinitely” even if subclinical. When you translate that into an average reef setting, it’s a question mark if even the degree of immunity Burgess describes is possible.

Yes - exactly - but at least at 3 months there was 'full immunity' as defined by the study.

 

[Anxur]

Good morning everyone. I have a problem with cryptocarion. Unfortunately I can't get the fish out for treatment in the quarantine tank... Some, most, seem to have no problems or spots. Some show dots especially in the morning, before the lights come on... I wanted to know if I can do something to cure them inside the aquarium (I have corals).. And if it is possible for it to disappear on its own. Thank you.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

I agree with you. To me the keyword is partial immunity which technically means that the cycle could continue “indefinitely” even if subclinical. When you translate that into an average reef setting, it’s a question mark if even the degree of immunity Burgess describes is possible.

Something to consider when comparing clinical environments to a reef aquarium environment is whether or not ‘full’ immunity even matters.

The fish immunoresponse is only one part of the picture. The parasites have to successfully be able to reach such a population density to where there would be enough in the system to overwhelm a fish to the point of what we would consider infected.

It is not hard for parasites to pull that off in holding tanks, or even fish-only systems. It becomes much more difficult in systems that are much closer to functioning ecosystems.

First, the fish are generally less stressed and healthier in a reef tank than a holding tank, so their immunoresponse to infection would be more robust and allow the fish to have a greater resistance to infection. The end result is a lower parasite population. Secondly, there are things in a reef that consume planktonic ciliates, so it is much more difficult for Cryptocaryon to build a significant enough population to reach infectous levels in an established reef.

What I think ends up happening is that the reef always maintains very low population levels of many parasites. There will probably be enough to occasionally interact with a fish…how many times have we looked into reef tanks and seen one or two fish with a couple of spots on them, but nothing else? This all was for relatively frequent interactions between fish and parasite which, in theory, should continue to remind both the short-term and long-term immunoresponses of the fish that Cryptocaryon needs to be dealt with.

I have been around countless reef tanks over 30+ years of working with them. i don’t think I have ever seen an ich outbreak on a healthy, established reef.

 

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

Good morning everyone. I have a problem with cryptocarion. Unfortunately I can't get the fish out for treatment in the quarantine tank... Some, most, seem to have no problems or spots. Some show dots especially in the morning, before the lights come on... I wanted to know if I can do something to cure them inside the aquarium (I have corals).. And if it is possible for it to disappear on its own. Thank you.

There is no effective, reef-safe cure for ich - you can either treat with copper meds or hyposalinity, both of which would kill most/all inverts (including corals) in a tank:

if you want to treat ich effectively, you need either copper medication (chelated copper like Coppersafe or Copper Power at 2.25-2.5ppm for 30 days after the last ich trophonts disappear is recommended) or hyposalinity (drop your salinity to 1.009 and keep the tank at that salinity for 30 days after the last signs/symptoms of the disease disappear), neither of which are reef-safe. There is no effective, reef-safe treatment for ich at the moment (at least not one that I've heard of).

When ich is "managed" properly (before the infestation gets too severe), it will appear as if the ich has gone away on its own - it has not.

When ich is managed properly (through good water quality, good feeding, good aquascape, etc. - basically just excellent husbandry), it will stay suppressed and seemingly (but not really) non-existent in the tank for as long as the fish are in good health - as soon as a fish is stressed or begins failing in health for some reason (aggression, equipment failure/power outage, etc.), the ich will seemingly appear from nowhere (I've heard of this happening years after ich was last seen in a tank).

From what I have seen, ich will not truly go away on its own - the fish can just be kept healthy enough to suppress it to the point where it's not an issue for them, and visibly doesn't show up on the fish.

 

[MnFish1]

Good morning everyone. I have a problem with cryptocarion. Unfortunately I can't get the fish out for treatment in the quarantine tank... Some, most, seem to have no problems or spots. Some show dots especially in the morning, before the lights come on... I wanted to know if I can do something to cure them inside the aquarium (I have corals).. And if it is possible for it to disappear on its own. Thank you.

There are very few things that work to remove ich from the aquarium, especially with corals. Using UV, siphoning the sand often, perhaps increasing flow, and perhaps decreasing bioload (as well as maintaining excellent water, and feeding) may help mitigate some of these issues. The fact that your fish are not getting ich and dying suggests that they may have developed some immunity (in addition to their innate immunity). Additionally, there is some data which is old, suggesting that after 11 or so life cycles over a year, that ich strains can die out. If I had a tank with ich, I would not add new fish, unless extremely familiar with the ich management protocols (and even then - I would question the ethics of adding a healthy fish to a tank with a known disease present. .

 

[GARRIGA]

My 30 plus years collecting and breeding reptiles subscribes to the theory healthy living and reduced stress goes farther than medications and whether that’s due to immunity or just being healthy not known but seems to be a winning recipe.

Goal is to observe new acquisitions and resolve what shows vs blanket treatments. Attempt or maintain a healthy reef tank with reduced stress within practicality. They will see my ugly mug often.

QT will be a mixture of sediment filtration to eradicate a substantial portion of pathogens although will test using hydroxyls as a form of eradication of that swept into the filtration. Seeking lower density that won’t overwhelm its host allowing it time to either fight pathogens with existing immunity or that obtained from being exposed.

Impossible to hope for a sterile tank as it pertains to pathogens as every new frag, pebble or replacement invert and additional fish would be plausible carriers and don’t believe those practicing stringent QT protocols can possibly account for every vector at least not those of us maintaining home aquariums. More pragmatic to reduce pathogen numbers and hope nature solves the rest.

 

[MnFish1]

My 30 plus years collecting and breeding reptiles subscribes to the theory healthy living and reduced stress goes farther than medications and whether that’s due to immunity or just being healthy not known but seems to be a winning recipe.

Goal is to observe new acquisitions and resolve what shows vs blanket treatments. Attempt or maintain a healthy reef tank with reduced stress within practicality. They will see my ugly mug often.

QT will be a mixture of sediment filtration to eradicate a substantial portion of pathogens although will test using hydroxyls as a form of eradication of that swept into the filtration. Seeking lower density that won’t overwhelm its host allowing it time to either fight pathogens with existing immunity or that obtained from being exposed.

Impossible to hope for a sterile tank as it pertains to pathogens as every new frag, pebble or replacement invert and additional fish would be plausible carriers and don’t believe those practicing stringent QT protocols can possibly account for every vector at least not those of us maintaining home aquariums. More pragmatic to reduce pathogen numbers and hope nature solves the rest.

I actually agree with most of what you say. however, a tank with a parasite can rapidly overwhelm the fish - no matter what is fed or done. I think that if one wants to do a 2 month observation - that may mitigate some of the risk of not treating. No one (here) is talking about a sterile tank..... However, using your logic, every zoo and aquarium in the USA - and probably the world - is doing it wrong - and I don't believe thats true. So no one here (on the fish medic team) is calling for a 'sterile tank'. BTW - and no offense - I think you might be mixing up your terms - as far as vectors. In our tanks one can easily account for every common parasite if one quarantines the 'vectors'. I.e. the coral, rock, etc. With the prices that fish and coral are commanding these days - I think the most pragmatic way to deal with things is a QT protocol. If someone wants to do it without medication, thats great - however it involves a week long process not 2 days. I would suggest that you read the dozens of new requests DAILY that we read asking for help because their 1 fish they added caused disease in an entire tank - often with deaths, etc. If it were as simple as you suggest, there would be no need for a fish medic team or a fish disease section on this website, right?

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

However, using your logic, every zoo and aquarium in the USA - and probably the world - is doing it wrong

I’m going to offer a counter perspective to this point, having done some work with zoos and PAs on aquatics.

It’s not that they’re doing it ‘wrong’. It’s that there is a reluctance to change. That is a big ship that turns very slowly. They seem to operate under standardized best practices, and nobody really seems to challenge those best practices..

I was reading in a Z&A journal not long ago that a PA was experimenting with removing UV sterilizers from their systems, and it was viewed as a bold, revolutionary move. Congratulations…a lot of us did that 20 years ago.

 

[NanoNana]

So my major experience with fish disease was not CI but Trichodina. To all outward observations the fish seemed infected with CI and the loss rate was in excess of 50%.
The set up was for a 1650 gallon display aquarium for a client with all Hawaiian endemics including Moorish Idols, Butterflies, Tangs, Trigger fish, Bird Wrasse, Flame Hawkfish, Stripped Squirrel fish and Angelfish. The tank was designed to use Biological, Mechanical, U.V. sterilization, Klase Protein Skimmer and in line chiller/heater. Tank had 4000lbs of seeded live rock set up as a reef structure. Tank was set up and water mixed and circulated at proper salinity for 30 days before the fish arrived. Now the problem.

Mistake #1. The client at the last minute deleted the U.V. and chiller to save cost. Mistake #2. The Architect only provided heated air to the equipment room not the active exhaust fan in the original design to vent waste heat from the MH light systems and heat and moisture from the equipment room pumps and related equipment. Due to lights out during the run in period we had no indication of a heat problem. Tank was stable at 76 degrees and water quality was stable and cycled by the seeded rock. Grand opening was scheduled and the fish transported to the display tank from our holding system. No losses and no apparent problems.

The result after the grand opening was a tank water temperature in the 90's. Higher temperature lower oxygen. Fish started to exhibit symptoms like CI, flashing, white spots and including some with subdural hemorrhaging, loss of appetite, and similar CI symptoms in less than 24 hours the loss rates were climbing. It was then discovered that all we had was heat to the mechanical room and no vent. I used a Veterinarian at Washington State University that had worked in Aquaculture as a resource and paid for decropsy and diagnosis as to the causative agent before treatment. Initial decropsy was inconclusive so we sacrificed a couple very sick fish to find the causative agent. Trichodina is an ectocomensual that becomes pathogenic during issues of poor water quality or other environmental factors (high water temperature, lower oxygen).

Solution: Armed with the diagnosis we convinced the client to add back the Chiller and U.V. as originally designed. No medications were used but the loss rates stopped immediately and we successfully restocked the tank.

What I learned was the onset of similar symptoms to CI does not mean you have CI but you could have a similar symptom via Trichodina or other organisms. Trichodina as I mentioned lives on all fish both saltwater and freshwater and is manifest during higher levels of stress leading to pathogenic levels. With this knowledge I have used filtration methods including U.V. sterilization to dramatically improve and in many cases lower loss rates to less than 3% for multiple stores in the Pacific Northwest. This was a gain in both short and long term holding of fish for sale at these facilities. Prior to the use of these systems the stores averaged 30% or more in losses from acclimation to sale.

This is one reason I am against prophylactic use of chemicals to treat fish unless and until the actual causative agent is known via decropsy or microscopic diagnosis. If I were a physician I would not prescribe until a correct diagnosis was arrived at. It is akin to starting someone on Chemotherapy without a biopsy or other diagnostic certainties as to the type and cause of illness. Many of these prophylactic chemicals do in fact kill the flora and fauna needed to keep the fish healthy in the natural environment. So where are we to go to find the right kind of probiotics to restart their immune system after we destroyed it chemically?

To be clear, treating prophylactically in human medicine is done frequently and with good reason. There are many times that prophylactic treatment is appropriate. Prophylactic treatment for rabies is a prime example. If the animal is not available for testing prophylactic treatment may very well be life saving as only one case of rabies has ever been survived in the WORLD.
Prophylactic treatment of immunocompromised patients following exposure to serious illness is often warranted. Prophylactic treatment for wound infections or any infection if waiting on culture and sensitivity results. Prophylactic doxycycline following a tick bite is often provided.

There is also a place for prophylactic treatment in veterinary medicine be it family pets, livestock, avian or aquatic. Generally if you hear hoof beats, it’s horses. In your particular you found a zebra. Treating what looks like crypto as crypto via one of several methods is a tried and true practice that works more often than it doesn’t and I don’t see similarities with treating a fish by transferring tanks to inappropriately treating fibroid with chemotherapy.

 

[GARRIGA]

I actually agree with most of what you say. however, a tank with a parasite can rapidly overwhelm the fish - no matter what is fed or done. I think that if one wants to do a 2 month observation - that may mitigate some of the risk of not treating. No one (here) is talking about a sterile tank..... However, using your logic, every zoo and aquarium in the USA - and probably the world - is doing it wrong - and I don't believe thats true. So no one here (on the fish medic team) is calling for a 'sterile tank'. BTW - and no offense - I think you might be mixing up your terms - as far as vectors. In our tanks one can easily account for every common parasite if one quarantines the 'vectors'. I.e. the coral, rock, etc. With the prices that fish and coral are commanding these days - I think the most pragmatic way to deal with things is a QT protocol. If someone wants to do it without medication, thats great - however it involves a week long process not 2 days. I would suggest that you read the dozens of new requests DAILY that we read asking for help because their 1 fish they added caused disease in an entire tank - often with deaths, etc. If it were as simple as you suggest, there would be no need for a fish medic team or a fish disease section on this website, right?

My point being most of us don't QT everything. For example, how many order CUC and keep them in isolation for 70 plus days? Same with frags.

My approach based on reduced pathogen load and visual observation. I'll then take action as needed but last I'll do is medicate shot gun style assuming it was needed.

My comments on sterile being the objective of treating fish with copper and other medicines hoping to sterilize said fish of common pathogens. Works assuming CUC get same attention such as going FOWLER 70 plus days.

As for what institutions such as public aquariums do is beyond the scope of most. Fact is few have proper home QT setups. I don't and won't. I have limited space and work within my limitations. Not saying others should follow and if you've read enough of me you'll see mostly I speak on terms of my path forward and rarely do I force my views on others. Each should think for themselves because if they can't then keeping a reef tank my not be the wisest use of their time and money.

Keep in mind my main plans are 400 gallon plus and acquisitions will likely be groups of fish therefore just so much room to house and observe each group. My final QT for fish will likely be 40g plus then there's housing of frags. Not turning my house into a lab. I'll make do with what I have or perhaps order fish already processed by others although that doesn't guarantee all ailments solved. Life evolved to deal with pathogens. Had it not then life would have seize to exist long before we trapped them in glass boxes.

What's exactly wrong with load reduction of pathogens and expect captives to adapt as they do in the wild where getting infected must happen yet due to low volume of contacts the fish likely suppresses those attacks by building immunity? Something I've seen happen with reptiles for which many succumb to pathogens due to being exposed to similar rigors as wild caught fish and even captive bred still get occasional illness because life isn't perfect and illness can befall on any due to stress or environmental changes. I'm prone to catching colds in the summer. Last I'm going to do is take flu medication vs just get some rest and eat well. Life adapts given a chance.