Strange symptoms, any ideas?

[SoSublime]

I wanted to provide an update. This is one of 2 tests ran on the QT tank. This test was POST treatment.

Shows parasite free, Yay!!

So likely symptoms experienced at this time were all stress related.

Waiting for second test to verify results. But on the plus side, NO parasites at all. Proud of my biosecurity. Even if I do get tripped up at times.

 

[MnFish1]

I wanted to provide an update. This is one of 2 tests ran on the QT tank. This test was POST treatment.

Shows parasite free, Yay!!

So likely symptoms experienced at this time were all stress related.

Waiting for second test to verify results. But on the plus side, NO parasites at all. Proud of my biosecurity. Even if I do get tripped up at times.

I am not sure that this test guarantees the tank is parasite free - I might ask aquabiomics. If its POSITIVE - that is more significant IMHO - than if its negative - because of the possibility of sampling error.

 

[SoSublime]

I am not sure that this test guarantees the tank is parasite free - I might ask aquabiomics. If its POSITIVE - that is more significant IMHO - than if its negative - because of the possibility of sampling error.

As with all things, there is no gurantee Simply that the test could not detect any quantity of DNA belonging to a fish parasite. The tests are advertised as pretty high certainty though, given these same tests are preformed on their biological supplements and are advertised as "pest and parasite free". I would figure if the test was capable of seeing spirobid worms, despite seeing none, that it would detect a parasite, given I saw symptoms. But nothing, even the best biosecurity measures, are 100%.

The fish have been in the DT now for nearly a month, and not a single symptom has been shown since, and even new fish (also QT) added and no symptoms in new fish either.

I do agree though, hence two tests preformed (waiting on second results). We will see if there is any meaningful deviation or changes in results.

 

[MnFish1]

As with all things, there is no gurantee Simply that the test could not detect any quantity of DNA belonging to a fish parasite. The tests are advertised as pretty high certainty though, given these same tests are preformed on their biological supplements and are advertised as "pest and parasite free". I would figure if the test was capable of seeing spirobid worms, despite seeing none, that it would detect a parasite, given I saw symptoms. But nothing, even the best biosecurity measures, are 100%.

The fish have been in the DT now for nearly a month, and not a single symptom has been shown since, and even new fish (also QT) added and no symptoms in new fish either.

I do agree though, hence two tests preformed (waiting on second results). We will see if there is any meaningful deviation or changes in results.

The reason I said this was again - not to say it was wrong - there are ways to quantify these types of things (you're possibly aware - and I assume aquabiomics has calculated them) - specificity (the extent to which a diagnostic test is specific for a particular condition, trait, etc.), sensitivity, predictive value of a positive test (The predictive value of a positive test indicates the proportion of tanks with a positive test who actually have the parasite present) - and predictive value of a negative test ( the probability that if the no parasite DNA is found (i.e. negative), the tank does not have the parasite.)

My comment referred to the last one - I am curious to see what that number is (the predictive value of a negative test). My guess is that its much lower than the predictive value of a positive test - merely because of sampling).

Either way - its an interesting discussion (@AquaBiomics)?

 

[SoSublime]

The reason I said this was again - not to say it was wrong - there are ways to quantify these types of things (you're possibly aware - and I assume aquabiomics has calculated them) - specificity (the extent to which a diagnostic test is specific for a particular condition, trait, etc.), sensitivity, predictive value of a positive test (The predictive value of a positive test indicates the proportion of tanks with a positive test who actually have the parasite present) - and predictive value of a negative test ( the probability that if the no parasite DNA is found (i.e. negative), the tank does not have the parasite.)

My comment referred to the last one - I am curious to see what that number is (the predictive value of a negative test). My guess is that its much lower than the predictive value of a positive test - merely because of sampling).

Either way

I'm sure you'll find this entertaining.

The second test came in, and the results are well.... questionable to say the least.

Still no parasites present. But somehow a sterile started QT with just PVC has stylophora coral in it AND I've supposedly been keeping lyretail cichlids in saltwater

I'm all for accounting for test errors, but I've NEVER kept cichlids, and never owned a stylophora. And neither were certainly in my sterile started QT. So I think aquabiomics has some answering to do on how such egregious errors could occur, as I don't see how such a result could occur. Possible contamination of my sample at the lab? Oh and neither test detected the three living fish in the tank, but were somehow able to detect a type of fish I've never owned.

Not exactly confidence building results for their methodology lol.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm sure you'll find this entertaining.

The second test came in, and the results are well.... questionable to say the least.

Still no parasites present. But somehow a sterile started QT with just PVC has stylophora coral in it AND I've supposedly been keeping lyretail cichlids in saltwater

I'm all for accounting for test errors, but I've NEVER kept cichlids, and never owned a stylophora. And neither were certainly in my sterile started QT. So I think aquabiomics has some answering to do on how such egregious errors could occur, as I don't see how such a result could occur. Possible contamination of my sample at the lab? Oh and neither test detected the three living fish in the tank, but were somehow able to detect a type of fish I've never owned.

Not exactly confidence building results for their methodology lol.

right - cant tell maybe they willl answer

 

[SoSublime]

right - cant tell maybe they willl answer

So discussed it with Eli (AquaBiomics)

The markers used for fish and coral are unreliable at best. The marker essentially looks for ray finned fish or 95% of all fish, and "corals" but as corals are cnidarians, it falls under the same issue as I imagine something like a hydroid would hit as they're also cnidarians. So that is a non-issue.

As to accuracy with parasites. Eli expressed high-confidence with the results of the tests showing no known parasites, especially due to the two tests both returning negative results.

The one note made is the test -did- show the presence of a Scuticociliate, Uronemella Parafilificum in the Uronematidea family that the genus of Uronema and it's known parasites belong to but of a different genus Uronemella that has not been showed to have a parasitic relationship based on any study they can find, or that I could find, nor can I find any reference to outside of scientific journals, but it does belong to the same subclass that causes what we know as "Uronema" illness or "Scuticociliatosis" so anything is theoretically possible, but unlikely due to no known relationship with parasitic infection.