This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
affecting the interplay between microbiological organisms and their hosts,


the latter phase of


tested the responses of larvae to benign microorganisms, to assess whether they could counter biological


threats.


Traditionally there has been more focus on malign than on benign microbe-fish interactions, despite the fact that being healthy should be the normal situation. Trials were also conducted to ascertain the benevolent effects of microbes, as an agent to combat


invasive


pathogens. “Using


molecular


tools, we’ve generated some quite unexpected results,”


says project


coordinator Professor Peter Bossier of Ghent University. ”We can now revisit much of our prior work on larvae. Formerly, growth


only rates the and


enzyme activity of larvae were quantified, but now we can also examine how the development of experimental


situation are linked to well


the fish and the to


expression of genes, including specific responses


defined microbial


communities. We’ve obtained far more information about the varied mechanisms which govern healthy development of larvae than we had previously, although much remains to be learned about the molecular basis of


host-microbe


interactions in the larval phase.” To enhance the microbial quality of the


aquatic environment and to suppress the proliferation of


damaging microbes


within it, the group suggests a two- pronged intervention. The first of these is related to improved health by steering microbiota in the water. By channeling water through biofilters, microbes are forced to compete for nutrients, resulting in exclusion of opportunistic bacteria and creating a more stable and diverse microbial environment. The group found that such a microbial community results in more viable larvae, and in experiments with Atlantic cod larvae, managing bacterial communities in this way resulted in a 60% higher survival rate compared to a conventional setup. The system limits the availability of nutrients within larval tanks and stabilises the


www.projectsmagazine.eu.com


the project


amount of waste organic matter available to the microbial biomass in the tank, thus restricting microbial growth minimising


oscillations in


AT A GLANCE and microbial


biomass and activity. “We’ve consequently developed the possibility of steering, or controlling microbial community composition and activity in a way which enhances appetite, growth and survival of larvae,” says


“We’ve consequently developed the


possibility of steering, or controlling


microbial community composition and activity in a way which enhance


appetite, growth and survival of larva”


“Formerly, thinking


is


the general was


microbiological quality


critical


water to


larvae only for the first few days, and, thereafter, it’s primarily the microbiota of their diet which affects them. Our findings indicate that


this is incorrect.


Moreover, recirculating aquaculture


systems


seem to function as a microbial management technology - an aspect that


has been almost


completely overlooked.” Finally it appears that is not only possible


to steer microbial community composition but also their activity. Depending on the microbe-host


interaction under study, it


has been established that the outcome of these interactions might be determined by secreted quorum-sensing molecules. Such types of molecules contribute to the production of


molecules can be of Project Information


Project Title: PROMICROBE: Microbes as positive actors for more sustainable aquaculture


Vadstein. that


Project Objective: This project suggests bringing together various European research groups that have contributed to some important methodological breakthroughs that can be used in the study of host/microbe interactions and can help to disentangle the complex interplay between the different components of the aquaculture ecosystem


Project Duration and Timing: 5 years, Feb 2009 to April 2013


Project Funding: EU FP7


Project Partners: 1 Coordinator Ghent University (Ugent) Belgium


2 Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER) France


3 Wageningen University (WU) The Netherlands


4 Norwegian University for Science and Technology (NTNU)Norway


5 SINTEF Materials and Chemistry (SINTEF- MC) Norway


6 SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture (SINTEF- FA) Norway


7 Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (VIB) Belgium


MAIN CONTACT virulence factors.


Interference with the production of these quorum-sensing


beneficial to the host. Quorum quenching, as the technique is called, can be realised through


the addition molecules (contrary to antibiotics,


antagonistic these


compounds inhibit certain microbial activity rather


Future full-scale than trying to eliminate


them) or through the addition of microorganisms able to degrade quorum- sensing molecules.


experiments are needed to establish whether this


can become a reliable


microbial management technique. “Relationships between the larvae and should be mutualistic and


microbiota


symbiotic,” summarises Vadstein. “There is


no uniform solution, or magic


ingredient you can simply add to the water which improves larval survivability. Nonetheless, we have begun to explore and control a complex of underlying mechanism at work here.”


 65


Contact: Tel: 32 9 264 37 59 Email: Peter.bossier@ugent.be Web: www.promicrobe.ugent.be/


Peter Bossier Peter Bossier has been a researcher for 30 years in the domains of microbial ecology, molecular genetics (of stress response) and fish quality. At the moment, his focus is on host microbial interactions in larviculture. His research output stands at 167 A1 papers.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68