You are on page 1of 7

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/dit

Review Article

Probiotics in aquaculture
a,

Priyadarshini Pandiyan *, Deivasigamani Balaraman , Rajasekar Thirunavukkarasu , Edward


a
a
a
Gnana Jothi George , Kumaran Subaramaniyan , Sakthivel Manikkam , Balamurugan Sadayappan
a
a
b

Ph.D Research Scholar, CAS in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parangipettai 608502, Tamil Nadu, India
Assistant Professor, CAS in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parangipettai 608502, Tamil Nadu, India

article info

abstract

Article history:

Aquaculture is the worlds fastest growing food production sector. However, fish culture is currently suffering

Received 10 January 2013

from serious losses due to infectious diseases. The use of antimicrobial drugs, pesticides and disinfectant in

Accepted 8 March 2013

aquaculture disease prevention and growth promo-tion has led to the evolution of resistant strains of bacteria.
Thus, the research into the use of probiotics for aquaculture is increasing with the demand for environment e
friendly sustainable aquaculture. The benefits of such supplements include improved feed value, enzymatic

Keywords:

contribution to digestion, inhibition of pathogenic microorganisms, anti-mutagenic and anti-carcinogenic

Probiotic
Aquaculture

activity, and increased immune response. These pro-biotics are harmless bacteria that help the well being of

Lactic acid bacteria

pathogens. The use of probiotics in aquaculture has just begun, due to the fact that gastrointestinal microbiota

Bacillus sp

of aquatic organisms has been poorly characterized, and their effects are not studied extensively. This review

the host animal and contribute, directly or indirectly to protect the host animal against harmful bacterial

summarizes and evaluates brief knowledge about the probiotic organism, the action of probiotic in fish culture
and the safety evaluation of probiotics in aquaculture.

Copyright 2013, JPR Solutions; Published by Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Today, aquaculture is the fastest growing food-producing sector in the


world, with an average annual growth rate of 8.9% since 1970, compared
to only 1.2% for capture fisheries and 2.8% for terrestrial farmed meat
1

production systems over the same period. World aquaculture has grown
tremen-dously during the last fifty years from a production of less than a
million tonne in the early 1950s to 59.4 million tonnes by 2004. This level
of production had a value of US$70.3 billion. The diseases and
deterioration of environmental conditions often occur and result in serious
economic losses.

During the last decades, antibiotics used as traditional strategy for fish
diseases management and also for the improvement of growth and
efficiency of feed conversion. However, the development and spread of
3,4

antimicrobial resis-tant pathogens were well documented. There is a


risk asso-ciated with the transmission of resistant bacteria from
aquaculture environments to humans, and risk associated with the
introduction in the human environment of non-pathogenic bacteria,
containing antimicrobial resistance genes, and the subsequent transfer of
5

such genes to human pathogens. Considering these factors, there has


been height-ened research in developing new dietary supplementation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 9524149006.


E-mail address: priyadarshinibio87@gmail.com (P. Pandiyan).
0975-7619/$ e see front matter Copyright 2013, JPR Solutions; Published by Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.03.003

56

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 9

strategies in which various health and growth promoting compounds as


probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, phytobiotics and other functional dietary
6

supplements have been evalu-ated. In this context, microbial intervention


can play a vital role in aquaculture production, and effective probiotic
treat-ments may provide broad spectrum and greater nonspecific disease
7,8

protection.
This review summarizes and evaluates the broader
knowledge about the probiotics, selection of pro-bionts, commonly used
probiotic organism, their mode of ac-tion and safety regulation of
probiotics in aquaculture.

and food ingredients and such actions may result in inactivation of toxins
and detoxification of host and food components in the gut. According to
above summary, all three modes of probiotics actions are all likelihood
associated with gut and/or gut microbiota. Therefore, it has become
apparent that we are in fact dealing with another organ, the so called
microbiotic canal with the increased knowledge of the specific activity
of the gut microbiota.

4.
2.

Definition of probiotics

Probiotic organism

Today probiotics are quite commonplace in health promoting functional


foods for humans, as well as therapeutic, pro-phylactic and growth
9

The word probiotic was introduced by Parker, 1974. Ac-cording to his


original definition, probiotics are organisms and substances which
10

contribute to intestinal microbial bal-ance. Fuller, 1989 revised the


definition as live microbial feed supplement which beneficially affects
the host animal by improving its intestinal microbial balance. Therefore,
several terms such as friendly, beneficial, or healthy bacteria are
also commonly used to describe probiotics. Although appli-cation of
11

probiotics in aquaculture seems to be relatively recent, the interest in


such environment friendly treatments is increasing rapidly. Moriarty,
12

1998 proposed to extend the definition of probiotics in aquaculture to


microbial water additives. A growing number of studies have dealt
explicitly with probiotics, and it is now possible to survey its state of the
art, from the empirical use to the scientific approach.

17

13,14

18e20

supplements in animal production and human health.


Typically, the
lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have been widely used and researched for
human and terrestrial animal purposes, and LAB are also known to be
21,22

present in the intestine of healthy fish.


Interest in LAB stems from the
fact that they are natural residents of the human GIT with the ability to
tolerate the acidic and bile environment of the intestinal tract. LAB also
function to convert lactose into lactic acid, thereby reducing the pH in the
23

GIT and naturally preventing the colonization by many bac-teria, The


most widely researched and used lactic acid bac-teria are the Lactobacilli
and Bifidobacteria.

20,24,25

Other commonly studied probiotics include the spore form-ing


Bacillus sp. and yeasts. Bacillus sp. have been shown to possess adhesion
abilities, produce bacteriocins (antimicrobial peptides) and provide
26e29

immunostimulation.
Gram-positive obligate or facultative anaerobes
are dominant in the gastrointestinal microbiota of man and terrestrial farm

3.

Selection of probiotics

Selection of probiotic bacteria has usually been an empirical process


based on limited scientific evidence. Many of the failures in probiotic
research can be attributed to the selection of inappropriate
microorganisms. Selection steps have been defined, but they need to be
adapted for different host species and environments. It is essential to
understand the mecha-nisms of probiotic action and to define selection
15

30

animals. Most probionts belong to dominant or sub-dominant genera


among these microbiota, e.g., Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus,
30

Streptococcus.
Gram-negative facultative anaerobes prevail in the digestive tract of fish
and shellfish, though symbiotic anaerobes may be dominant in the
posterior intestine of some herbivorous tropical fish.

31

Pseudomonas are the most common genera in crustaceans,


and bivalves.

33,34

32

Vibrio and
marine fish

Aeromonas, Plesio-monas and Enterobacteriaceae are

criteria for potential probiotics. General selection criteria are mainly


determined by bio safety considerations,

dominant in freshwater fish. Bacillus spp. hold added interest in


probiotics as they can be kept in the spore form and therefore stored

a. Methods of production and processing.


b. Method of administration of the probiotic and
c. The location in the body where the microorganisms are expected to be

indefinitely on the shelf. The list of microorganism authorized as


probiotics in feeding stuffs under Council Directive 70/524/EEC are given
in Table 1. In addition, other probiotics are commercialized on the market
that has been notified, but that do not appear in the last authorized list of
feed additives published by the Commission.

33

35

active.

15

Three general modes of probiotics actions have been classi-fied and


16

presented by Oelschlaeger, 2010 as follow: (1) Pro-biotics might be able


to modulate the hosts gut defenses including the innate as well as the
acquired immune system and this mode of action is most likely important
for the prevention and therapy of infectious diseases but also for the
treatment of inflammation of the digestive tract or parts thereof. (2)
Probiotics can also have a direct effect on other organisms, commensal
and or pathogenic ones and this principle is in many cases is of great
importance in the prevention, treatment and restoration of the microbial
equilibrium in the gut. (3) Finally, probiotic effects may be based on
actions affecting microbial products, host products

5.

Mechanisms of action

Different modes of action or properties are desire on the po-tential


36,37
probiotic like antagonism to pathogens
ability of cells to produce
38
metabolites (like vitamins) and enzymes, coloni-zation or adhesion
39
40
properties enhance the immune system.

5.1.

Competitive exclusion of pathogenic bacteria

Competitive exclusion is a phenomenon


whereby an estab-lished microflora prevents or
reduces the colonization of a

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 9

natural or nonspecific defense system formed by a series of cellular and


humoral components, and 2) the adaptive, ac-quired or specific immune
system characterized by the hu-moral immune response through the
production of antibodies and by the cellular immune response which is
mediated by T-lymphocytes, capable of reacting specifically with
antigens. The normal microbiota in the GI ecosystem influences the innate
immune system, which is of vital importance for the disease resistance of
fish and is divided into physical barriers, humoral and cellular
components. Innate humoral parame-ters include antimicrobial peptides,
lysozyme, complement components, transferring, pentraxins, lectins,
antiproteases and natural antibodies, whereas nonspecific cytotoxic cells
and phagocytes constitute innate cellular immune effectors. Cytokines are
an integral component of the adaptive and innate immune response,
particularly IL-1b, interferon, tumor necrosis factor-a, transforming

Table 1 e List of microorganism authorized as probiotics


in feeding stuffs under Council Directive 70/524/EEC.
S. no.
Probiotic organism
1.

Bacillus cereus var. toyoi

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Bacillus licheniformis
Bacillus subtilis
Enterococcus faecium
Lactobacillus casei
Lactobacillus farciminis
Lactobacillus plantarum
Lactobacillus rhamnosus
Pediococcus acidilactici
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Streptococcus infantarius

57

44

competing bacterial challenge for the same location on the intestine. The
aim of probiotic products designed under competitive exclusion is to
obtain: stable, agreeable and controlled microbiota in cultures based on
the following; competition for attachment sites on the mucosa,
competition for nutrients and production of inhibitory substances by the
microflora which prevents replication and/destroys the chal-lenging
12

bacteria and hence reduce colonization.


Different strategies are
displayed in the adhesion of microorganism to those attachment sites as
passive forces, electrostatic in-teractions, hydrophobic, steric forces,
lipoteichoic
acids,
ad-hesions
and
specific
structures
of
41

adhesion. Adhesion and colonization of the mucosal surfaces are


possible protective mechanisms against pathogens through competition
for binding sites and nutrients.

5.2.

growth factor-b and several cehmokines regulate innate immunity. The


nonspecific immune system can be stimulated by probiotics. It has been
demonstrated that oral administration of Clostridium butyr-icum bacteria
to rainbow trout enhanced the resistance of fish to vibriosis, by increasing
7

the phagocytic activity of leuco-cytes. Rengpipat et al, 2000 mentioned


that the use of Bacillus sp. (strain S11) provided disease protection by
activating both cellular and humoral immune defenses in tiger shrimp
45

(Penaeus monodon). Balcazar, 2003


demonstrated that the
administration of a mixture of bacterial strains (Bacillus and Vibrio sp.)
positively influenced the growth and survival of juveniles of white shrimp
and presented a protective effect against the immune system, by
increasing phagocytosis and antibacterial activity.

42

Production of inhibitory compounds


5.4.

Bacterial antagonism is a common phenomenon in nature; therefore,


microbial interactions play a major role in the equi-librium between
43

competing beneficial and potentially patho-genic microorganisms.


Antagonistic compounds are defined as chemical substances produced by
microorganisms (in this case bacteria) that are toxic (bactericidal) or
inhibitory (bacte-riostatic) toward other microorganisms. The presence of
bacte-ria producing antibacterial compounds in the intestine of the host,
on its surface, or in its culture water is thought to prevent proliferation of
pathogenic bacteria and even eliminate these. The structure of the
antibacterial compound is often not eluci-dated and their mode of action
has not been reported. Further-more none of these reports demonstrate
that the antibacterial compound is produced in vivo. This will be of
significant importance, if production of these compounds and its mode of
action are understood. If the production of antibacterial com-pound is the
only mode of action, it is possible that the pathogen eventually will
develop resistance toward the compound. This will result in an ineffective
treatment. The risk of the pathogen to develop resistance against the active
compound has to be eval-uated, to assure a stable effect of the probiotic
bacterium.

Some bacteria used as candidate probiotics have antiviral ef-fects.


Although the exact mechanism by which these bacteria exerts its antiviral
effects is not known, laboratory tests in-dicates that the inactivation of
viruses can occur by chemical and biological substances, such as extracts
from marine algae and extracellular agents of bacteria. It has been
reported that strains of Pseudomonas sp., Vibrio sp., Aeromonas sp., and
groups of coryneforms isolated from salmonid hatcheries, showed
antiviral activity against infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV)
46

The immune systems of fish and higher vertebrates are similar and both
have two integral components: 1) the innate,

47

with more than 50% plaque reduction. Girones et al, 1989 reported
that a marine bacterium, tentatively classified in the genus Moraxella,
48

showed antiviral activity against poliovirus. Direkbusarakim et al, 1998


iso-lated two strains of Vibrio spp. from a black tiger shrimp hatchery.
These isolates displayed antiviral activities against IHNV and
Oncorhynchus masou virus (OMV), with percentages of plaque reduction
between 62 and 99%, respectively.

6.
5.3. Enhancement of the immune response against pathogenic
microorganisms

Antiviral effects

Safety regulation

The safety profile of a potential probiotic strain is of critical importance in


the selection process. This testing should include the determination of
strain resistance to a wide vari-ety of common classes of antibiotics such
as tetracyclines, quinolones and macrolides and subsequent confirmation
of

58

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 9

49

non-transmission of drug resistance genes or virulence plas-mids.


Evaluation should also take the end-product formu-lation into
consideration because this can induce adverse effects in some subjects or
negate the positive effects alto-gether. A better understanding of the
potential mechanisms whereby probiotic organisms might cause adverse
effects will help to develop effective assays that predict which strains
might not be suitable for use in probiotic products. Further-more, modern
molecular techniques should be applied to ensure that the species of
probiotics used in aquaculture are correctly identified, for quality
assurance as well as safety.

7.

Discussion

The application of probiotics in aquaculture shows promise, but needs


considerable efforts of research. However, a num-ber of probiotic
products have been thoroughly researched, and evidenced their efficacy a
possible use on aquaculture. Beneficial bacterial preparations that are
species-specific probiotics have become more widely available to the
aqua-culture community. These preparations show specific bene-ficial
effect as disease prevention and offer a natural element to obtain a stable
healthy gut environment and immune sys-tem. The establishing of strong
disease prevention program, including probiotic and good management
practice can be beneficial to raise aquatic organism production.

8.

Conclusion

The application of probiotics in aquaculture shows promise, but needs


considerable efforts of research. It is essential to understand the
mechanisms of action in order to define se-lection criteria for potential
probiotics. Therefore, more in-formation on the host/microbe interactions
in vivo, and development of monitoring tools (e.g. molecular biology) are
still needed for better understanding of the composition and functions of
the indigenous microbiota, as well as of microbial cultures of
probiotics. The use of probiotics is an important management tool, but
its efficiency depends on understand-ing the nature of competition
between species or strains.

Conflicts of interest
All authors have none to declare.

Acknowledgments
Authors are grateful to Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (F1-17.1/201112/RGNF-SC-TAM-1686/(SA-III
Website))
University
Grant
Commission, Government of India, New Delhi for the financial support
and sincere thanks and gratitude to Prof. Dr. T. Balasubramanian, Dean
and Director, CAS in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences,
Annamalai University, Parangipettai for the necessary facilities provided.

references

1. Subasinghe RP, Curry D, McGladdery SE, Bartley D. Recent


technological innovations in aquaculture. In: Review of the State of World
Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular; 2003:59e74.
2. Bondad-Reantaso MG, Subasinghe RP, Arthur JR, et al. Disease and
health
management
in
Asian
aquaculture.
Vet
Parasitol.
2005;132:249e272.
3. Cabello FC. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a
growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment.
Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:1137e1144.
4. Sorum H. Antimicrobial drug resistance in fish pathogens. In: Aarestrup
FM, ed. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria of Animal Origin.
Washington DC: ASM Press; 2006:213e238.
5. FAO. In: Serrano PH, ed. Responsible Use of Antibiotics in
Aquaculture. Rome: FAO; 2005:98. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
469.
6. Denev SA. Ecological Alternatives of Antibiotic Growth Promoters in the
Animal Husbandry and Aquaculture. DSc. Thesis. Stara Zagora, Bulgaria:
Department of Biochemistry Microbiology, Trakia University; 2008. 294.
7. Rengpipat S, Rukpratanporn S, Piyatiratitivorakul S, Menasaveta P.
Immunity enhancement in black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) by
probiotic bacterium (Bacillus S11). Aquaculture. 2000;191:271e288.
8. Paningrahi A, Azad IS. Microbial intervention for better fish health in
aquaculture: the Indian scenario. Fish Physiol Biochem.
2007;33:429e440.
9. Parker RB. Probiotics, the other half of the antibiotics story.
Anim Nutr Health. 1974;29:4e8.
10. Fuller R. Probiotic in man and animals. J Appl Bacteriol.
1989;66:365e378.
11. Kozasa M. Toyocerin (Bacillus toyoi) as growth promotor for animal
feeding. Microbiol Aliment Nutr. 1986;4:121e135.
12. Moriarty DJW. Control of luminous Vibrio species in penaeid aquaculture
ponds. Aquaculture. 1998;164:351e358.
13. Wang YB, Xu ZR. Effect of probiotics for common carp (Cyprinus
carpio) based on growth performance and digestive enzyme activities.
Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2006;127:283e292.
14. Vine NG, Leukes WD, Kaiser H. Probiotics in marine
larviculture. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2006;30:404e427.
15. Huis int Veld JHJ, Havenaar R, Marteau PH. Establishing a scientific
basis for probiotic R&D. Tibtech. 1994;12:6e8.
16. Oelschlarger TA. Mechanisms of probiotic actions e a review.
Int J Med Microbiol. 2010;300:57e62.
17. Wolf G. Gut microbiota: a factor in energy regulation. Nutr Rev.
2006;64:47e50.
18. Ouwehand AC, Salminen S, Isolauri E. Probiotics: an overview of
beneficial effects. Antonie Van Leewenhoek. 2002;82:279e289.
19. Sullivan A, Nord CE. The place of probiotics in human intestinal
infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002;20:313e319.
20. Senok AC, Ismaeel AY, Botta GA. Probiotics: facts and myths. Clin
Microbiol Infect. 2005;11(12):958e966.
21. Ringo E, Gatesoupe FJ. Lactic acid bacteria in fish: a review.
Aquaculture. 1998;160:177e203.
22. Hagi T, Tanaka D, Iwamura Y, Hoshino T. Diversity and seasonal changes
in lactic acid bacteria in the intestinal tract of cultured freshwater fish.
Aquaculture. 2004;234:335e346.
23. Klewicki R, Klewicka E. Antagonistic activity of lactic acid bacteria as
probiotics against selected bacteria of the Enterobaceriacae family in
the presence of polyols and their galactosyl derivatives. Biotechnol Lett.
2004;26:317e320.
24. Corcoran BM, Ross RP, Fitzgerald GF, Stanton C. Comparative survival
of probiotic lactobacilli spray-dried in the presence of probiotic
substances. J Appl Microbiol. 2004;96:1024e1039.

d r u g i n v e n t i o n t o d a y 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 5 5 e5 9

25. Ross RP, Desmond C, Fitzgerald GF, Stanton C. Overcoming the


technological hurdles in the development of probiotic foods. J Appl
Microbiol. 2005;98:1410e1417.
26. Cherif A, Ouzari H, Daffonchio D, et al. Thuricin 7: a novel bacteriocin
produced by Bacillus thuringiensis BMG1.7, a new strain isolated from
soil. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2001;32:243e247.
27. Cladera-Olivera F, Caron GR, Brandelli A. Bacteriocin-like substance
production by Bacillus licheniformis strain P40. Lett Appl Microbiol.
2004;38:251e256.
28. Duc LH, Hong HA, Barbosa TM, Henriques AO, Cutting SM.
Characterization of Bacillus probiotics available for human use. Appl
Environ Microbiol. 2004;70(4):2161e2171.
29. Barbosa TM, Serra CR, La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ, Henriques
AO. Screening for Bacillus isolates in the broiler gastrointestinal tract.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(2):968e978.
30. Gournier-Chateau N, Larpent JP, Castellanos I, Larpent JL. Les
Probiotiques en Alimentation Animale et Humaine. Paris: Technique et
Documentation Lavoisier; 1994. 192.
31. Clements KD. Fermentation and gastrointestinal microorganisms in
fishes. In: Mackie RI, Withe BA, Isaacson RE, eds. Gastrointestinal
Microbiology. New York: International Thomson Publishing.;
1997:156e198.
Gastrointestinal Ecosystems and Fermentations. Chapman & Hall
Microbiology Series; vol. 1.
32. Moriarty DJW. Interactions of microorganisms and aquatic animals,
particularly the nutritional role of the gut flora. In: Lesel R, ed.
Microbiology in Poecilotherms. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1990:217e222.
33. Sakata T. Microflora in the digestive tract of fish and shell-fish. In: Lesel
R, ed. Microbiology in Poecilotherms. Amsterdam: Elsevier;
1990:171e176.
34. Prieur D, Mevel G, Nicolas JL, Plusquellec A, Vigneulle M.
Interactions between bivalve molluscs and bacteria in the marine
environment. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev. 1990;28:277e352.
35. Hong HA, Duc LH, Cutting SM. The use of bacterial spore formers as
probiotics. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2005;29:813e835.
36. Ringo E, Vadstein O. Colonization of Vibrio pelagius and
Aeromonas caviae in early developing turbot (Scophtalmus maximus
L.) larvae. J Appl Microbiol. 1998;84:227e233.

59

37. Gram L, Melchiorsen J. Interaction between fish spoilage bacteria


Pseudomonas sp. and Shewanella putrefaciens in fish extracts and on fish
tissue. J Appl Bacteriol. 1996;80:589e595.
38. Ali A. Probiotic in Fish Farming-Evaluation of a Candidate Bacterial
Mixture. Umea, Senegal: Sveriges Lantbruks Universitet; 2000.
39. Olsson JC, Westerdahk A, Conway PL, Kjelleberg S. Intestinal
colonization potential of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) and dab
(Limanda limanda) associated bacteria with inhibitory effects against
Vibrio anguillarum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992;58:551e556.
40. Perdigon G, Alvarez S, Rachid M, Aguero G, Gobbato N. Probiotic
bacteria for humans: clinical systems for evaluation of effectiveness:
immune system stimulation by probiotics. J Dairy Sc.
1995;78:1597e1606.
41. Salyers AA, White DD. Bacterial Pathogenesis, a Molecular
Approach. Washington D. C: ASM Press; 2002.
42. Westerdahl A, Olsson J, Kjelleberg S, Conway P. Isolation and
characterization of turbot (Schophthalmus maximus) associated bacteria
with inhibitory effects against Vibrio anguillarum.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991;57:2223e2228.
43. Balcazar JL, Vendrell D, De Blas I, Cunninghem D, Vandrell D, Muzquiz
JL. The role of probiotic in aquaculture. Vet Microbiol.
2006;114:173e186.
44. Gomez GD, Balcazar JL. A review on the interactions between gut
microbiota and innate immunity of fish. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol.
2008;52:145e154.
45. Balcazar JL. Evaluation of Probiotic Bacterial Strains in
Litopenaeus Vannamei: Final Report. Guayaquil, Ecuador: National
Center for Marine and Aquaculture Research; 2003.
46. Kamei Y, Yoshimizu M, Ezura Y, Kimura T. Screening of bacteria with
antiviral activity from fresh water salmonid hatcheries. Microbiol
Immunol. 1988;32:67e73.
47. Girones R, Jofre JT, Bosch A. Isolation of marine bacteria with antiviral
properties. Can J Microbiol. 1989;35:1015e1021.
48. Direkbusarakom S, Yoshimizu M, Ezura Y, Ruangpan L, Danayadol
Y. Vibrio spp. the dominant flora in shrimp hatchery against some
fish pathogenic viruses. J Mar Biotechnol. 1998;6:266e267.
49. Moubareck C, Gavini F, Vaugien L, Butel M, Doucer-Popularie F.
Antimicrobial susceptibility of Bifidobacteria. J Antimicrob
Chemother. 2005;55:38e44.

Copyright of Drug Invention Today is the property of Journal of Pharmacy Research and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

You might also like