Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 973–980 | Cite as

Pseudomonas aeruginosa FARP72 Offers Protection Against Aeromonas hydrophila Infection in Labeo rohita

  • Farhana HoqueEmail author
  • T. Jawahar Abraham
  • T. S. Nagesh
  • Dibyendu Kamilya


Use of probiotics as the biocontrol agent for disease prevention in aquaculture is gaining importance as an alternative to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and other chemotherapeutics. In view of this trend, the probiotic properties of a potent antagonistic bacterium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa FARP72, was characterized in terms of safety, antagonistic activities, in vitro immunomodulation, and in vivo disease resistance. Immunomodulatory activity was ascertained by measuring the production of intracellular superoxide anion, nitric oxide, total leukocyte peroxidase content, and the leukocyte proliferation in head kidney leukocytes. The bacterium isolated from the skin mucus of freshwater catfish Clarias batrachus was harmless to Labeo rohita. It showed inhibitory activity against Aeromonas caviae, A. hydrophila, Edwardsiella tarda, Pseudomonas putida, and Streptococcus agalactiae as revealed by cross and parallel streaking methods. Significantly higher superoxide anion and nitric oxide production, peroxidase content, and proliferative responses of leucocytes delineated the strains’ ability to interact with immune cells to activate the immune system in vitro. Significant growth inhibition of A. hydrophila from 1.55 × 105 CFU/mL was observed when co-cultured with P. aeruginosa FARP72 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at levels ranging from 2.61 × 107 to 2.61 × 109 CFU/mL in 10 days. P. aeruginosa FARP72 increased the survival rate of rohu fingerlings against pathogenic A. hydrophila challenge in biocontrol study in vivo as determined by cohabitation challenge. These results suggest that P. aeruginosa FARP72 is a potential probiotic strain and can be used in aquaculture to improve the health status and disease resistance of fish.


Labeo rohita Aeromonas hydrophila Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biocontrol Probiotics 



The authors thank the Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata for providing necessary infrastructure facility to carry out the work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Statement

All authors of this paper have read and approved the final version submitted. The contents of this manuscript have not been copyrighted or published previously.

1. The contents of this manuscript are not now under consideration for publication elsewhere.

2. The contents of this manuscript will not be copyrighted, submitted, or published elsewhere, while acceptance by the Journal is under consideration.

3. Use of laboratory animals (fish) in the present study has complied with the guidelines and policies of the ethical committee of the Institute.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The state of world fisheries and aquaculture., 2012
  2. 2.
    Austin B, Austin DA (2012) Bacterial fish pathogens: disease of farmed and wild fish, 5th edn. ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies J, Davies D (2010) Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 74(3):417–433. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oost RVD, Beyer J, Vermeulen NPE (2003) Fish bioaccumulation and biomarkers in environmental risk assessment: a review. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 13(2):57–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nayak SK (2010) Probiotics and immunity: a fish perspective. Fish Shellfish Immunol 29:2–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merrifield DL, Dimitroglou A, Foey A, Davies SJ, Baker RTM, Bogwald J, Castex M, Ringo E (2010) The current status and future focus of probiotic and prebiotic applications for salmonids. Aquaculture 302:1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vieira AT, Teixeira MM, Martins FS (2013) The role of probiotics and prebiotics in inducing gut immunity. Front Immunol 4:445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irianto A, Austin B (2002) Probiotics in aquaculture. J Fish Dis 25:633–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vijayan KK, Bright IS, Jayaprakas NS, Alavandi SV, Somnath Pai S, Preetha R, Rajan JJS, Santiago TC (2005) A brackishwater isolate of Pseudomonas PS-102, a potential antagonistic bacterium against pathogenic vibrios in penaeid and non-penaeid rearing systems. Aquaculture 251:192–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chythanya R, Karunasagar I, Karunasagar I (2002) Inhibition of shrimp pathogenic vibrios by a marine Pseudomonas I-2 strain. Aquaculture 208:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giri SS, Sen SS, Sukumaran V (2012) Effects of dietary supplementation of potential probiotic Pseudomonas aeruginosa VSG-2 on the innate immunity and disease resistance of tropical freshwater fish, Labeo rohita. Fish Shellfish Immunol 26:245–248. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sahu MK, Swarnakumar NS, Sivakumar K, Thangaradjou T, Kannan L (2008) Probiotics in aquaculture: importance and future perspectives. Indian J Microbiol 48:299–308. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) (2002) Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO working group on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food.
  14. 14.
    Hoque F (2015) Screening and characterisation of antagonistic Pseudomonas aeruginosa FARP72 as a potential probiotic agent. Indian J Fish 62(4):80–90Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Austin B, Baudet E, Stobie M (1992) Inhibition of bacterial fish pathogens by Tetraselmis suecica. J Fish Dis 15:55–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nakamura A, Takahashi KG, Mori K (1999) Vibriostatic bacteria isolated from rearing seawater of oyster brood stock: potentiality as biocontrol agents for vibriosis in oyster larvae. Fish Pathol 34:139–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gram L, Melchiorsen J, Spanggaard B, Huber I, Nielsen TF (1999) Inhibition of Vibrio anguillarum by Pseudomonas fluorescens AH2, a possible probiotic treatment of fish. Appl Environ Microbiol 65(3):969–973Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Román L, Real F, Sorroza L, Padilla D, Acosta B, Grasso V, Bravo J, Acosta F (2012) The in vitro effect of probiotic Vagococcus fluvialis on the innate immune parameters of Sparus aurata and Dicentrarchus labrax. Fish Shellfish Immunol 33:1071–1075. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamilya D, Ghosh D, Bandyopadhyay S, Mal BC, Maiti TK (2006) In vitro effects of bovine lactoferrin, mushroom glucan and Abrus agglutinin on Indian major carp, catla (Catla catla) head kidney leukocytes. Aquaculture 253:130–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strober W (2001) Trypan blue exclusion test of cell viability. Curr Protoc Immunol Appendix 3B.
  21. 21.
    Devi TB, Kamilya D, Abraham TJ (2012) Dynamic changes in immune-effector activities of Indian major carp, catla (Catla catla) infected with Edwardsiella tarda. Aquaculture 366-367:62–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kamilya D, Baruah A, Sangma T, Chowdhury S, Pal P (2015) Inactivated probiotic bacteria stimulate cellular immune responses of catla, Catla catla (Hamilton) in vitro. ProbioticsAntimicrobial Proteins 7:101–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mosmann T (1983) Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 65:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Madetoja J, Nyman P, Wiklund T (2000) Flavobacterium psychrophilum, invasion into, shedding by rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Dis Aquat Org 43:27–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trivedi P, Pandey A, Palni LS (2008) In vitro evaluation of antagonistic properties of Pseudomonas corrugate. Microbiol Res 163(3):329–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    El-Rhman AMA, Khattab YAE, Shalaby AME (2009) Micrococcus luteus and Pseudomonas species as probiotics for promoting the growth performance and health of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Fish Shellfish Immunol 27:175–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giri SS, Sukumaran V, Sen SS, Vinumonia J, Banu BN, Jena PK (2011) Antagonistic activity of cellular components of potential probiotic bacteria, isolated from the gut of Labeo rohita, against Aeromonas hydrophila. Fish Shellfish Immunol 3:214–222. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cazorla FM, Duckett SB, Bergstroem ET, Noreen S, Odijk R, Lugtenberg BJ, Thomas-Oates JE, Bloem-berg GV (2006) Biocontrol of Avocado dematophora root rot by antagonistic Pseudomonas fluorescens PCL1606 correlates with the production of 2-hexyl 5-propyl resorcinol. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 19:418–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bentley R (1990) From antibiosis to antibiotics a brief account of early work. Biochemist 12(5):14–17Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akya A, Pointon A, Thomas C (2009) Viability of Listeria monocytogenes in co-culture with Acanthamoeba spp. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 70:20–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salinas I, Díaz-Rosales P, Cuesta A, Meseguer J, Chabrillón M, Moriñigo MA, Esteban MA (2006) Effect of heat-inactivated fish and non-fish derived probiotics on the innate immune parameters of a teleost fish (Sparus aurata L.). Vet Immunol Immunopathol 111:279–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neumann NF, Fagan D, Belosevic M (1995) Macrophage activating factor (s) secreted by mitogen stimulated gold fish kidney leukocytes synergize with bacterial lypopolysaccharide to induce nitric oxide production in teleost macrophages. Dev Comp Immunol 19:473–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sakai M (1997) Current research status of fish immunostimulants. Aquaculture 172:63–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abraham TJ, Babu CHS, Mondal S, Banerjee T (2007) Effects of dietary supplementation of commercial human probiotic and antibiotic on the growth rate and content of intestinal microflora in ornamental fishes. Bangladesh J Fish Res 11:57–63Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brunt J, Austin B (2005) Use of a probiotic to control lactococcosis and streptococcosis in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). J Fish Dis 28:693–701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taoka Y, Maeda H, Jo JY, Kim SM, Park SI, Yoshikawa T, Sakata T (2006) Use of live and dead probiotic cells in tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Fish Sci 72:755–766. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Das A, Nakhro K, Chowdhury S, Kamilya D (2013) Effects of potential probiotic Bacillus amyloliquifaciens FPTB16 on systemic and cutaneous mucosal immune responses and disease resistance of catla (Catla catla). Fish Shellfish Immunol 35:1547–1553. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farhana Hoque
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • T. Jawahar Abraham
    • 1
  • T. S. Nagesh
    • 3
  • Dibyendu Kamilya
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Aquatic Animal Health, Faculty of Fishery SciencesWest Bengal University of Animal and Fishery SciencesKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Regional Research CentreICAR-Central Institute of Freshwater AquacultureKolkataIndia
  3. 3.Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Faculty of Fishery SciencesWest Bengal University of Animal and Fishery SciencesKolkataIndia
  4. 4.Department of Aquatic Health and Environment, College of FisheriesCentral Agricultural UniversityAgartalaIndia

Personalised recommendations