1 / 25

Tolerance of different hard clam stocks to various isolates of Quahog Parasite Unknown (QPX)

Tolerance of different hard clam stocks to various isolates of Quahog Parasite Unknown (QPX). Soren Dahl, Mickael Perrigault, and Bassem Allam Marine Sciences Research Center Stony Brook University New York. Protistan parasite of Mercenaria mercenaria.

forrest-beck
Download Presentation

Tolerance of different hard clam stocks to various isolates of Quahog Parasite Unknown (QPX)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tolerance of different hard clam stocks to various isolates of Quahog Parasite Unknown (QPX) Soren Dahl, Mickael Perrigault, and Bassem Allam Marine Sciences Research Center Stony Brook University New York

  2. Protistan parasite of Mercenaria mercenaria • Important fisheries, aquaculture; U.S. East • 1st Industry wide disease concern, near market size clams • Mortality events; Cultured & Wild clams • 1960’s New Brunswick Canada • Discovered in Virginia, 1997 • Thraustochytrid: common osmoheterotrophs • Heavy mortalities (up to 100%) but also present at extremely low prevalence (>0.1%) in apparently healthy clam populations • Opportunistic parasite • Disease/mortality disadvantaged groups

  3. Possible sources of variability In the host • Susceptibility varies due to geographic origin of broodstock (VIMS, HSRL) In the parasite • Pathogen range; unknown variation • Diverse mortality events • Diagnostic presentations; lesion sites, disease severity • Morphological or physiological differences among QPX isolated from different locations (Buggé & Allam, in prep.) • Potential differences in pathogenicity

  4. Hypothesis: Prevalence and severity of QPX infections in Mercenaria mercenaria varies significantly due to particular interactions between clam stocks and QPX organisms. Objectives: 1. Compare tolerance of different cultured hard clam stocks to QPX infection. 2. Compare the pathogenicity of QPX organisms geographically or morphologically distinct

  5. QPX Transmission Approach: Laboratory Investigate susceptibility of different clam strains to different QPX isolates • Used a recently-developed experimental transmission method by injecting QPX into clam’s pericardial cavity(NSA 05; Dahl and Allam, submitted) • Three QPX Cultures: Isolated from infected clams collected in: • Massachusetts (MA-1), New York (NY8BC7 and NY20AC5) • Minimal Essential Media: control • 4 strains of naïve seed (~1yr): • Massachusetts • Virginia • New York • Florida • Histology sampling; 15 & 27 weeks • Prevalence: # of positive individuals • Mortality monitoring • Moribund samples MA-1, NY-1, NY-2

  6. Adjusted by amount of control mortality % mortality Seed type Final cumulative mortality (27 weeks) % mortality Seed type

  7. Isolate: MA-1 Percent prevalence of infection by isolate. Low Isolate: NY-1 High Isolate: NY-2 Intermediate

  8. Statistical Analysis: Test independence of prevalence data, Contingency tables (frequency independent of variables) Log-linear analysis, 3 way tables: Seed Type, Isolate, Infection Simultaneous interaction of all three variables: NS *p<10-5 Two way interactions: S Seed Type: S Isolate: S* G-test of independence for 2 way tables Independence of Seed type MA-1: NS NY-1: S FL ↑ NY-2: S VA ↑ Independence of Isolate MA: NY: S VA: S FL: S** S Sign. @ p<0.05 , William’s correction Lack of prevalence in MA-1 treatment **High NY-1; p<10-4 QPX prevalence can be correlated to the type of clam inoculated, stronger significance is attributed to the isolate of QPX that was injected into the clam

  9. MA-1: least pathogenic Low mortalities, prevalence lacking NY-1: most pathogenic Consistently high prevalence, severe mortalities NY-2: more pathogenic than MA-1 but not quite as virulent as NY-1 Intermediate prevalence, mortality often rivaled NY-1 MA: most tolerant Low mortality and prevalence NY: variable Moribund prevalence; highest (NY-1), lowest (MA-1) Not as susceptible as FL or VA, not as tolerant as MA VA: infection from all 3 Most often prevalent, typically high FL: consistent range MA-1: low, NY-1: high, NY-2: middle more susceptible than MAor NY Multiple Isolate injection trial summary QPX Isolate Hard clam type

  10. QPX Transmission: Field approach Aim: Infective pressure and dynamics in environment Compare the susceptibility of different clam strains Investigate early stages of the disease • Method: Deploy naïve seed clams in cages placed on bottom; • 3 strains of clams: • New York White, • New York notata, • Florida • 4 sites; • 3 to 5 replicates/site • 500 seed/bag • QPX prevalence and • clam mortality Raritan Bay Flanders Bay Southold Bay Northwest Hbr

  11. N=60 N=48 N=120 ~85% pallial organs QPX present in QPX present only in mantle

  12. Peconic estuary field deployments Similar sampling schedule: Diagnosis of all 3 sites are... Negative • Good News! • Relieve fears of epizootic • Historic Transplant sites • Previous detection at very low levels • Wild populations • Assay validated in Raritan Bay

  13. Conclusions • QPX tolerance of hard clams can be correlated to the geographic origin of the broodstock. A gradient of resiliency can be described as a latitudinal trend; higher tolerance in clams from the north. • Intensity and severity of infection can be heavily dependent on the virulence of a particular QPX strain • Pallial organs represent a portal of entry for the parasite and disease can develop within weeks

  14. Conclusions Physiological differences based on stock, influencing resistance • Genetic or Poor Acclimation? • Lab controlled stable environment; 20°C • Transport stress; injected Equally Disadvantaged • Population selection by parasite • QPX not in the south; less tolerant of high summer temperatures than clam (in vitro results)

  15. Restoration applications need caution in stock selection Previous QPX activity Identification of resistant stocks Local/Regional selection processes Not all Quahogs are created equal Not all QPX are created equal • Potential threat of disease is determined by virulent capabilities of the QPX strain • Local activity: naïve seed assay, isolate strain

  16. Acknowledgements • New York Sea Grant • New York State D.E.C., Marine Resources • Cornell Cooperative, Southold, NY (S.P.A.T.) • Hatcheries, VIMS • Marine Animal Disease Lab: • Tech, Follow students; ‘QPX-Clan’ • Faculty and Staff: MSRC, SBU

  17. Questions?

  18. Thanks for Listening! See you at the…

  19. Factors affecting QPX growth In vitro growth of QPX cultures: optimal around 20-23° C (different for different isolates), in agreement with QPX prevalence in the field Percent growth (%) Temperature (ºC)

  20. MA-1 N=1 MA-1 N=5 MA-1 N=10 MA-1 N=3 NY8BC7 N=27 NY8BC7 N=4 NY8BC7 N=13 NY8BC7 N=25 NY20AC5 N=6 NY20AC5 N=8 NY20AC5 N=9 NY20AC5 N=10

  21. Log-linear analysis for three way tables:Testing independence of Variables: Seed Type (4 classes); Inoculate (3 classes); Infection Status (2 classes). Probability of data, for a sample, resulting from model with a term removed. The degree of association between any pair of variables would depend upon the different levels of a third. For each class of Infection Status, Inoculate and Seed Type are associated. Within a particular inoculate treatment the clam type and infection status are associated. Given a class of seed type there is a consistent association of inoculate treatment and infection status. More substantial P values represent a greater source of influence on the results. QPX prevalence can be correlated to the type of clam inoculated, but is even more attributed to the isolate of QPX that was injected into the clam

  22. Tests of independence: Row by Column (RxC) contingency table (2 way), G-test (William’s correction) & Gabriel's simultaneous test procedure; all maximal non-significant sets of rows and columns Test for independence of Seed type and Infection status within Inoculate Inoculate treatment: A= (MA-1), B= (NY8BC7), C= (NY20AC7). Test for independence of Inoculate and Infection status within Seed type More P values are significant due to the isolate treatment.

  23. Cytotoxicity of different QPX isolates In vitro toxicity varies among QPX isolates Hemocyte viability (OD 560 nm)

  24. Most definitive display of trends as seen in other seed type results, as well as the results of in vitro pathogenicity.

  25. 1990’s MA NY 2002 2003 NY, RI 1976 NJ 1997 VA survey QPX disease; History and Geographic distribution 1960’s NB 1989 PEI 1990’s NS survey

More Related