1. Introduction
Shrimp is a popular seafood with high demand, especially in southeast Asia, providing a substantial contribution of USD 250 billion to the local, national, and regional economies [1,2]. China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam are the main contributors of white leg shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) and black tiger shrimp (P. monodon) with production values at USD 26.7 billion and USD 5.59 billion, respectively [1,2,3] Since global population is expected to reach over 9 billion people by 2030, shrimp aquaculture can play a major role in providing global food and nutritional security to people in both developed and developing countries, as well as sustaining the livelihood of the global population [2,4]. However, the pressure to intensify and expand shrimp aquaculture systems has exposed shrimp aquaculture to disease outbreaks, leading to huge economic losses of over USD 9 billion per year, which is approximately 15% of the value of global farmed fish and shellfish productions [2].
Antibiotics have played a critical role in reducing morbidity and mortality from bacterial diseases in aquaculture [5]. In fact, antibiotics and other drugs are commonly employed in shrimp culture for growth promotion, treatment, and disease prevention [6]. In addition, antibiotics such as oxytetracycline, tetracycline, quinolones, sulphonamides, enrofloxacin, norfloxacin, gentamicin and trimethoprim, are commonly used and permitted in shrimp farming [1,7,8]. However, antibiotics are heavily used in outbreak areas for immediate treatment, and the overuse of antibiotics in aquaculture eventually leads to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacterial strains in fish and other aquatic species, including shrimp [9,10]. Eventually, several antibiotics are no longer effective in fighting bacterial infections [11]. Several alternatives have been considered to control disease outbreaks in shrimp farms, including strict biosecurity measures, green water systems, probiotics, and phage [12,13]. In fact, better farm management, including seed and stock selection, aeration, water treatment, and the application of non-harmful chemicals, such as organic acids and natural products in the diet, have been considered [14,15,16]. A good feed management system, including high-quality feed enriched with immunostimulants, as well as the addition of probiotics, aids in disease prevention [17]. Ignoring the biosecurity of shrimp hatcheries and farms allows outbreaks to spread.
Plasmid screening should be considered as an additional procedure in the monitoring programs to trace antibiotic resistance dissemination [18]. Plasmid plays a crucial role in the transmission of resistance genes, since it consists of genetic determinants of antibiotic resistance. In fact, there is a correlation between plasmid and antibiotic resistance among Vibrio spp. [19,20]. Therefore, plasmid curing is used to eliminate bacterial plasmid and determine antibiotic resistance mediation. Curing agents, such as acridine orange (AO), ethidium bromide (EB), and sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), are commonly used in plasmid curing [21]. Hence, this study aimed at providing important information regarding the prevalence, antibiotic resistance patterns, and plasmid profiling of Vibrio spp. isolated from cultured shrimp in Peninsular Malaysia.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Shrimp Sampling and In-Situ Examination
A total of 210 shrimp were randomly collected between March 2019 and March 2021 from seven farms (n = 30 shrimp/farm) that were located around Peninsular Malaysia (Table 1). They were P. monodon (n = 150) and P. vannamei (n = 60) having 30 days of culture. The shrimp samples included healthy and unhealthy shrimp and were randomly collected by using a lift net. During the collection, shrimp length and weight were measured and recorded. Then, the samples were immediately placed in ice and transferred to the laboratory within 3 to 4 h. Samples were washed thoroughly with sterile distilled water followed by dissection with sterile scissors. Following collection, the hepatopancreas and midgut were carefully examined. Healthy shrimp showed large and black hepatopancreases with full midguts, whereas unhealthy shrimp had small and pale hepatopancreases with empty midguts. Other clinical signs, such as body coloration, growth, size of the shrimp, and signs of poor feeding and swimming behaviour were observed [22,23,24].
2.2. Bacterial Isolation and Identification
Samples of hepatopancreases were homogenized in 1.0 mL of 0.9% sterile saline solution, and then serially diluted with sterile saline. One hundred µL of the suspensions were inoculated onto thiosulfate citrate bile salts sucrose (TCBS) agar (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) and incubated for 24 h at 30 °C. The yellow and green colonies were then recorded and further sub-cultured onto TCBS to obtain a pure culture [22].
2.3. Biochemical Tests
All suspected Vibrio isolates were subjected to Gram staining (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) before being subjected to a series of biochemical assays, which included Gram staining, triple sugar iron (TSI), oxidase, catalase, O-nitrophenyl beta-D-galactosidase (ONPG), sulphur production, indole, motility (SIM) agar and lysine decarboxylase (LDC) (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) [25,26].
2.4. Bacterial Identification Using pyrH Gene
Genomic DNA of the suspected Vibrio isolates was extracted using the DNA Purification Kit (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) and stored at −20 °C until use. Identification of the Vibrio isolates was verified based on the partial sequencing of pyrH that produced a PCR product size of around 500 bp. The pyrH forward primer of 5′-GAT CGT ATG GCT CAA GAA G-3′ and pyrH reverse primer of 5′-TAG GCA TTT TGT GGT CAC G-3′ were used [27]. The PCR cycling condition included an initial denaturation at 94 °C for 3 min, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min, annealing at 55.3 °C for 2 min 15 s, extension at 72 °C for 1 min 15 s, and a final denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min 15 s. The PCR mixtures containing 2.5 μL of the DNA template (10–100 ng) were mixed with 12.5 μL of premixed Reddiant PCR MasterMix (First Base, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) comprised of 60 U/mL of Taq DNA polymerase, 3 mM MgCl2, 400 µM dNTP mix and 10 µM each of forward and reverse primers, in a total volume of 25 μL of PCR mixture. Then, the PCR amplifications were carried out using a PCR thermocycler (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). The amplified products were examined using 1% agarose gel electrophoresis that had been pre-added with FloroSafe DNA stain (First Base Laboratories) dye and sequencing was performed (Apical Scientific Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia).
2.5. Sequence Editing and Analysis
The resulting DNA sequences were trimmed of low quality at the frond and end of the sequence by using ChromasPro 2.1.8 software (Technelysium Pty Ltd., South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia). The trimmed sequences were then blasted in the GenBank database using the nucleotide Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLASTn) (
2.6. Phylogenetic Analysis
Phylogenetic analysis was conducted using MEGA version 7.0 [28]. After the addition of pyrH genes obtained from 36 Vibrio spp. reference genomes (Table A1), the database of pyrH sequences was aligned using ClustalW and a curated database of the sequences was used for subsequent analyses. A neighbor joining phylogenetic analysis was conducted with the Kimura-2-parameter model with 1000 bootstrap replicates [29]. The reported sequences were deposited in the GenBank nucleotide sequence databases (accession numbers OP198216–OP198433). (Supplementary Materials).
2.7. Antibiotic Susceptibility Test
Antibiotic susceptibility of the Vibrio isolates was determined using the disc diffusion method [30]. Sixteen antibiotics (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) were used, which included the following: tetracycline 30 μg (TET), ampicillin 10 μg (AMP), gentamicin 10 μg (CN), sulfomethiozole-trimethoprim 25 μg (SXT), erythromycin 15 μg (E), chloramphenicol 30 μg (C), norfloxacin 10 μg (NOR), penicillin G 10U (P), cefepime 30 μg (FEP), cefotaxime 30 μg (CTX), ceftazidime 30 μg (CAZ), cephalothin 30 μg (KF), kanamycin 30 μg (K), ciprofloxacin 5 μg (CIP), nitrofurantoin 300 μg (F) and vancomycin 30 μg (VA). Following incubation for 24 h at 30 °C, the isolates were then inoculated in sterile saline water to achieve a bacterial concentration of 1.5 × 108 CFU/mL, which was equivalent to 0.5 MacFarland standard. The broth was evenly swabbed onto Mueller Hinton (MH) agar (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) supplemented with 1.5% of sodium chloride (NaCl) [31]. Antibiotic discs were aseptically placed on the agar and incubated at 35 °C for 18 h before the inhibition zones were measured. Antibiotic susceptibilities, categorized as resistant (R), intermediate (I) or susceptible (S), were assigned using criteria outlined in the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (version M45-A2) [32,33]. The multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index was calculated using the MAR index value: A/B = MAR index, where A was the number of antibiotics to which the isolate was resistant, and B was the total number of antibiotics used in this study [34]. A MAR index value of less than 0.2 indicated that the isolates were from low-risk sources of contamination. In contrast, a MAR index of greater than 0.2 indicated that the isolates were from high-risk sources of contamination [35].
2.8. Plasmid Extraction
Approximately 2.5 mL of bacterial culture from Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK), supplemented with 1.5% NaCl, was centrifuged at 12,000× g for 3 min. The Vibrio isolate was purified using a GeneJet Plasmid Purification kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The plasmid-containing supernatant was stored at −20 °C. The presence of plasmid was detected using agarose gel (1% w/v) electrophoresis (Bio-Rad).
2.9. Plasmid Curing
Vibrio isolates, that harbored plasmid, were treated with acridine orange (AO) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) following modifications of the method by Letchumanan et al. [19]. The isolates were grown on TSB supplemented with 1.5% of NaCl, at 30 °C for 18 h under constant agitation. After incubation, 200 µL of the aliquots were added into the tubes containing Luria Bertani (LB) broth (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK), supplemented with 1.5% of NaCl (control), and into the tubes containing LB broth, supplemented with 1.5% of NaCl and AO. The isolates were incubated at 30°C for 18 h [36]. The presence of plasmid was detected using agarose gel electrophoresis (1 % w/v) after treatment with AO. In addition, the antibiotic susceptibility test was repeated, as stated earlier, to confirm changes in resistance profiles.
3. Results
3.1. Clinical Examination
Most of the sampled shrimp were healthy (85%), while 15% were unhealthy shrimp. Based on the observations, the hepatopancreas of healthy shrimp was large and black, while the midgut was full (Figure 1a,c). On the other hand, the hepatopancreas of unhealthy shrimp appeared small and pale, while the midgut was empty (Figure 1b,d). The body coloration between healthy and unhealthy seemed to be different, in that unhealthy shrimp had a pale body color (Figure 1b) compared to healthy shrimp (Figure 1a). In fact, the sizes of the unhealthy shrimp were smaller compared to healthy shrimp. The in-situ examination showed that the hepatopancreas and midgut were associated with signs of vibriosis. However, additional tests, in terms of molecular identification and histological examination, are required for verification.
3.2. Isolation and Identification of Vibrio spp.
A total of 225 suspected Vibrio isolates were obtained from the 210 sampled shrimp. They were identified by color, shape, and size of the culture on TCBS agar. Among the 225 isolates, 149 (66%) isolates produced green, round, and medium-sized (2–5 mm) colonies, while 76 (34%) isolates produced yellow, round, and medium-sized colonies (Table 2).
3.3. Biochemical Characterization of Vibrio spp.
All 225 isolates (100%) were Gram negative, positive to catalase and oxidase tests, motile but not able to produce sulfide gas. An indole test showed that 95% of the isolates were positive, while 80% of the isolates tested positive for lysine dehydrogenase (LDC). None of the isolates produced gas and hydrogen sulfide. However, 61% of the isolates produced red (alkaline) coloration in the slants and yellow (acid) in the butts. They fermented the glucose. A total of 39% appeared yellow in both the slants and butts (Table 3).
3.4. Prevalence of Vibrio spp.
A total of 225 suspected Vibrio spp. were isolated based on the green and yellow colonies appearing on thiosulfate citrate bile salt sucrose (TCBS) agar. They were also pyrH positive producing a single band of 500 bp. Among them, 22% of the isolates were from Banting, Selangor, 16% were from Ayer Hitam, Kedah, 16% were from Marang, Terengganu, 13% were from Manjung, Perak, 12% were from Merlimau, Melaka, 11% were from Sg. Besar, Selangor and 11% were from Mersing, Johor (Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, V. parahaemolyticus was found in most of the sampling sites, including Banting in Selangor, followed by Sg. Besar in Selangor, Merlimau in Melaka, Mersing in Johor, Marang in Terengganu and Manjung in Perak. While V. owensii found in Ayer Hitam in Kedah, Marang in Terengganu, Manjung in Perak and Banting in Selangor. V. campbellii were found in Sg. Besar in Selangor, Merlimau in Melaka and Manjung in Perak. Moreover, V. campbellii was the dominant species in Manjung, Perak and Sg. Besar, Selangor. Meanwhile, V. rotiferanius was found predominantly in Ayer Hitam, Kedah. It was also found in Sg. Besar in Selangor, Merlimau in Melaka and Manjung in Perak. V. alginolyticus were found in Mersing, Johor and Ayer Hitam, Kedah. V. communis was mostly found in Ayer Hitam Kedah and was also detected in Sg. Besar, Selangor. P.damselae was found in Sg Besar and Banting, Selangor. It was predominantly found in Merlimau, Melaka. Other species, including V. xuii and V. harveyi, were only found in Manjung, Perak. V. brasiliensis was found in Ayer Hitam, Kedah, while V. hepatarius and V. natriegens were only found in Banting, Selangor.
3.5. Phylogenetic Analyses of Vibrio spp.
The 225 Vibrio strains were successfully isolated and identified from 210 cultured shrimp. Phylogenetic analysis of pyrH sequences revealed that 96% of the isolates were clustered into 12 distinct species, while the remaining 4% were clustered into Vibrio spp. (Figure 3). The strains were categorized into three clades, including Harveyi, Nereis and Orientalis. The Harveyi clade consisted of eight species, which were V. parahaemolyticus, V. owensii, V. communis, V. rotiferianus, V. campbellii, V. alginolyticus, V. natriegens, and V. harveyi. V. xuii belonged to the Nereis clade. On the other hand, the Orientalis clade consisted of V. brasiliensis and V. hepatarius. There were a total of 55% isolates clustered into V. parahaemolyticus, followed by 7% of V. owensii, 9% of V. communis, 5% of V. rotiferianus, 8% of V. campbellii, 3% of V. alginolyticus, 2% of V. brasiliensis, 1% of V. xuii and V. harveyi, 2% of V. natriegens and 0.4% of V. hepatarius (Figure 3). In this study, all the Vibrio spp. were above 95% threshold to distinguish between Vibrio species, as proposed by Sawabe et al. [37].
3.6. Antibiotics Susceptibility Test
The findings revealed that all the Vibrio isolates (13/13) were found to be resistant to vancomycin (VA), including V. parahaemolyticus, V. campbellii, V.rotiferianus, V. owensii, V. alginolyticus, V. xuii, V. harveyi, V. natriegens, V. hepatarius, V. communis, V. brasiliensis, Vibrio spp. and P. damselae. The findings showed that eight out of thirteen species were highly resistant (100%) to vancomycin (VA). The same applied to penicillin G (P), which all of the Vibrio isolates (13/13) were found to be resistant to. However, seven out of thirteen (7/13) species were highly resistant (100%) to penicillin G. The results also indicated that all Vibrio spp. were resistant to at least one of the 16 antibiotics tested. When compared to other Vibrio spp. isolates, V. parahaemolyticus was found to be resistant to all the tested antibiotics (16/16). Indeed, V. parahaemolyticus was discovered to be the only species that was resistant to norfloxacin (NOR) (1%). The findings also indicated that seven out of thirteen (7/13) of the Vibrio isolates, over 50%, were resistant toward the tested antibiotics, including V. parahaemolyticus, V. campbellii, V. rotiferianus, V. owensii, V. alginolyticus, V. natriegens and V. communis. (Table 4).
3.7. Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) Index
The MAR index ranged between 0.06 and 0.75 (Table 5). The average of MAR index was 0.41, and 16% (n = 36) had a MAR index of <0.2, whereas the remaining 84% (n = 189) showed a MAR index of >0.2. In fact, 0.4% had a MAR index of 0.06, indicating that they were antibiotic resistant to at least one type of antibiotic. On the other hand, 0.4% of the isolates showed a MAR index of 0.75, indicating a resistance to 12 antibiotics. Approximately 95% of the isolates were multidrug resistant (MDR), meaning that they were resistant to three or more antibiotics, with a MAR index between 0.19 and 0.75 (Table 5). The most common MAR index was 0.38, which was found in 22% of the Vibrio isolates, indicating that they were resistant to six different antibiotics. Other MAR indices were 0.13 (4%), 0.19 (12%), 0.25 (15%), 0.31 (16%), 0.44 (13%), 0.50 (6%), 0.56 (6%), 0.63 (2%) and 0.69 (3%).
3.8. Plasmid Profiling
Among the 225 Vibrio isolates tested, 125 (55.6%) isolates harbored plasmid with molecular weight from 1.0 to above 10.0 kb. While 100 (44.4%) of the isolates did not harbored any of the plasmid. The Vibrio spp. that were found to contain plasmid including V. parahaemolyticus (80%), V. communis (40%), V. campbellii (44%), V. owensii (60%), V. rotiferanius (42%), V. natriegens (40%), V. brasiliensis (50%), V. alginolyticus (71%), Vibrio spp. (38%) and P. damselae (43%). However, none of the plasmid were found in V. harveyi, V. xuii and V. hepatarius (Table 6). Most of the isolates, that harbored plasmid, were resistant to ampicillin (AMP) (84%) (Table 6). The percentages of plasmids discovered in the resistance isolates are shown in Table 7. There were 57.6% that had one plasmid, 15.2% had two plasmids, 18.4% had three plasmids, 3.2% had four and six plasmids and 2.4% had five plasmids. The plasmids were categorized into twenty-three (23) different profiles as follows: 4 (3.2%) of the isolates presented profiles 1 and 23; 1 (0.8%) of the isolates presented profiles 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11,13, 15 and 21; 2 (1.6%) of the isolates presented profiles 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, 19, 20 and 22; 65 (52.0%) of the isolates presented profile 4; 9 (7.2%) of the isolates presented profile 12; and 5 (4.0%) of the isolates presented profile 17 (Table 7). From 23 of the plasmid profiles, the profile that formed the largest group was plasmid profile 4 that consisted of one plasmid of above 10.0 kb size (Table 7).
3.9. Plasmid Curing
Figure 4 shows the number of resistant isolates before and after plasmid curing. The number of resistant isolates were reduced after the curing. Generally, the number of resistant isolates changed to intermediate and susceptible after the curing process with acridine orange. According to Figure 4a, it was shown that before the curing process, 125 of the isolates were resistant to ampicillin (AMP). However, after curing, 110 of the isolates remained resistant to ampicillin (AMP), while 15 of the isolates changed to either intermediate or susceptible, 4 to intermediate and 11 to susceptible (Figure 4b). Similarly, from 125 of the isolates, 123 and 124 of the isolates remained resistant to vancomycin (VA) and penicillin G (P), respectively, after the curing process. On the other hand, the number of isolates that were resistant to cephalothin (KF) drastically dropped from 102 to 57 isolates (Figure 4a), 28 changing to intermediate and 17 to susceptible (Figure 4b). There was also reduction in resistance of isolates to cefotaxime (CTX), from 93 to 55 isolates (Figure 4a), 19 of the isolates changing to intermediate and susceptible, respectively (Figure 4b). Resistance of the isolates against kanamycin (K) decreased from 76 to 42 isolates (Figure 4a), 33 changing to intermediate and 1 to susceptible (Figure 4b). In addition, a similar pattern of reduction was observed for isolates’ resistance against nitrofurantoin (F), from 58 before curing to 31 after curing (Figure 4a), 21 changing to intermediate and 6 to susceptible (Figure 4b). The findings also revealed a dramatic decrease in isolates resistant to ceftazidime (CAZ) and erythromycin (E), from 37 to 7 and 26 to 6, respectively (Figure 4a), with 11 and 19 changing to intermediate and susceptible regarding ceftazidime (CAZ) and 12 and 8 changing to intermediate and susceptible against erythromycin (E) (Figure 4b). All of the isolates resistant to cipfloxacin (CIP) changed to intermediate (7) and susceptible (6) (Figure 4a,b). Based on the gentamicin (CN) results, the number of resistant isolates dropped from 9 to 3 isolates (Figure 4a), 3 changing to intermediate and 3 to susceptible (Figure 4b). The number of the isolates resistant to cefepime (FEP) dropped from 8 to 6 isolates (Figure 4a), 2 changing to susceptible after the curing process. The number of isolates resistant to chloramphenicol (C) dropped from 12 to 11 isolates (Figure 4a), one of the isolates changing to intermediate (Figure 4b). For norfloxacin (NOR), the resistance of the isolates changed to susceptible after the curing process (Figure 4a,b). There was no change in resistance to sulfomethiozole-trimethoprim (SXT) and tetracycline (TET) after plasmid curing, indicating that the resistance isolates were chromosomally mediated (Figure 4a). The result after plasmid curing revealed that when the antibiotic resistance profile was affected, it indicated that the resistance isolate was plasmid mediated, whereas when the antibiotic resistance profile was unaffected, it indicated that the resistance isolate was chromosomal mediated [19].
4. Discussion
Vibrio spp. are a group of bacteria naturally found in freshwater, estuaries and marine environments [38]. It is commonly known that Vibrio spp. are responsible for numerous human diseases attributed to the natural microbiota of aquatic environments and seafood [39]. In humans, Vibrio spp. are known to cause gastroenteritis, cholera, and septicemia [40]. The human pathogenic Vibrio spp. of clinical relevance include the following: V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, V. cholerae, V. vulnificus, V. tubiashi and V. fluvialis [41]. In addition, V. parahaemolyticus, V. vulnificus, and V. mimicus are foodborne pathogens [42]. Meanwhile, the common Vibrio spp. associated with the shrimp diseases are V. harveyi, V. parahaemolyticus, V. alginolyticus, V. anguillarum, V. vulnificus and V. splendidus. V. harveyi is associated with luminescent vibriosis in shrimps, particularly in P. vannamei and P. monodon. V. parahaemolyticus can cause human illness and is frequently associated with food-borne gastroenteritis or diarrhoea [43].
Identification based on biochemical keys has been proposed for Vibrio spp. and is an excellent means to obtain a large number of reference and environmental Vibrio strains [34]. However, conventional phenotyping and biochemical identification techniques are poorly adapted to Vibrio strains isolated from seafood and aquatic environments [44]. The presence of both false positive and false negative results in all the biochemical identification methods leads to difficulties identifying the Vibrio spp. [45]. Therefore, PCR assays are required for their identification and detection [46].
Phylogenetic analyses were carried out using the neighbor-joining method to confirm taxonomic position in the genus Vibrio [47]. Generally, the 16S rRNA gene is the most popular molecular marker for identifying and classifying isolated pure cultures and estimating bacterial density in environmental samples through metagenomic assay [48]. However, the 16S rRNA gene has low discriminatory power, leading to the misidentification of Vibrio spp. compared to other tested genes [37]. In addition, Vibrio spp. share more than 97% similarity with the 16S rRNA resulting in difficulties in differentiating closely related species [49]. Due to this limitation, other housekeeping genes are used as phylogenetic markers to determine the diversity of bacterial species. In this study, phylogenetic analysis using the pyrH gene showed that Vibrio spp. isolated from shrimp belonged to three clades: Harveyi, Nereis and Orientalis. The Harveyi clade consists of eight species, which are V. parahaemolyticus, V. owensii, V. communis, V. rotiferianus, V. campbellii, V. alginolyticus, V. natriegens, and V. harveyi. V. xuii belongs to the Nereis clade. Finally, the Orientalis clade consists of V. brasiliensis and V. hepatarius [37]. The pyrH gene is a housekeeping gene that encodes uridine monophosphate kinase (UMP kinase), which participates in the pyrimidine biosynthesis catalyzing the conversion of UMP into UDP [50]. According to Chimetto et al. [51], the pyrH gene could effectively distinguish the species level of Vibrio, including V. communis, which currently is categorized as Vibrio spp. In fact, pyrH were also among the genes that gave the highest resolution in distinctively differentiating V. harveyi and V. campbellii [52]. In addition, it was also among the genes that gave the highest resolution in distinctively differentiating V. harveyi and V. campbellii [52]. Thus, pyrH gene was chosen, since it was one of the molecular markers suitable for identifying the closely related Vibrio spp. in this investigation [53].
A study performed by Thompson et al. [54] compared the species resolution level with three different housekeeping genes, rpoA, recA and pyrH. The findings revealed that the pyrH gene was a good predictor of Vibrio and a good discriminatory target at the species level. Moreover, they showed stability of this locus, due to high proportions of synonymous mutations leading to the conservation of the amino acid sequence. Furthermore, until other genome-based techniques are proposed, pyrH is the most powerful method for distinguishing Vibrio spp. in biodiversity, population genetics, and evolution studies. It also helps to eliminate the misidentification of Vibrio ancestry clades [37]. In molecular phylogenetics, the use of a minimum gene set in molecular phylogenetics is critical for reducing time and expense, while also improving the accuracy of results. This is especially important when identifying species and understanding population structure and evolution in a large bacterial taxon like the Vibrionaceae family, with over 140 species [37].
In this study, we successfully isolated 225 Vibrio spp. from the hepatopancreases of cultured shrimp. They were V. parahaemolyticus, V. owensii, Vibrio spp., V. communis, V. rotiferianus, V. campbellii, V. alginolyticus, V. brasiliensis, V. xuii, V. harveyi, V. natriegens, V. hepatarius and P. damselae. Vibrio parahaemolyticus was the most prevalent species, isolated from six sampling locations. In fact, V. parahaemolyticus is often isolated from seafood, particularly shellfish or bivalve mollusks, worldwide [55]. In Croatia, 9.4% of sea fish, shrimp, and bivalve mollusks carry V. parahaemolyticus [56]. Similarly, Letchumanan et al. [57] revealed that V. parahaemolyticus could easily be isolated from retail shrimp in Malaysia. Vibrio parahaemolyticus was found to be dominant in shrimp in Ecuador (81%), Sri Lanka (98%), and Egypt (18%) [58,59,60]. Other species, such as V. campbellii and V. harveyi, were common species detectable in tropical marine regions and are among the most important bacterial pathogens of many commercially farmed marine invertebrate and vertebrate species in many Asian countries [61,62]. However, many previous studies have demonstrated the predominance of V. alginolyticus in shrimp or seafood samples [63]. According to Kriem et al. [44], the most common Vibrio spp. in shrimp in Morocco was V. alginolyticus. Similarly, Baffone et al. [64] reported the predominance of V. alginolyticus among fresh seafood products, followed by V. parahaemolyticus and V. cholerae. Unfortunately, contrary to our findings, V. alginolyticus was scarce and could only be found in two sampling locations in Mersing, Johor and Ayer Hitam, Kedah. The source of samples, methods of identification, study area, season, salinity, and temperature during storage or even transportation may influence the variation of Vibrio spp. prevalence in seafood [65,66]. In addition, temperature, pH, salinity, and nutrient levels present in the water column can ultimately affect the abundance of Vibrio [67].
Antibiotic resistance can be transmitted through sequential mutations in chromosomal genes or by acquiring genetic elements, such as plasmids, bacteriophages, or transposons [68]. This study demonstrated that 100% of the isolates were resistant to penicillin G, followed by vancomycin (98%) and ampicillin (84%). Vibrio resistance to ampicillin has been reported since 1978 with ranges between 40% and 90%. The ampicillin-resistant pattern could be related to the abuse of first-generation antibiotics in the environment, which reduced ampicillin susceptibility and efficiency in treating Vibrio infection [69]. Similarly, penicillin-resistant Vibrio has already been reported in different penaeid culture regions [70,71]. Srinivasan and Ramasamy [72] reported 100% penicillin G resistance in India, while Albuquerque et al. [73] also revealed high resistance to penicillin G. This study also reported that the isolates were highly resistant to vancomycin, which was consistent with Noorlis et al. [28]. Chloramphenicol (C) and norfloxacin (NOR) were the antibiotics to which Vibrio spp. were least resistant. The study showed that resistance to chloramphenicol (C) was only found in V. parahaemolyticus (9%) and V. communis (5%), while resistance to norfloxacin was only found in V. parahaemolyticus (1%). The result regarding chloramphenicol was expected, since it was banned due to the risks of human exposure to its residues in food products, which prevents fish farmers from using it [69]. Previous research by Ottaviani et al. [74], Sahilah et al. [75], and Sudha et al. [69] also supported our findings. Hence, regular monitoring on the usage of antibiotics is required to avoid the emergence of new resistant strains.
The Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) index, which ranges from 0 to 1.0, is a valuable measure for determining health risks. The MAR index value (0.20) is differentiated between low and high risks. A MAR value greater than 0.20 indicates that the samples have an increased risk of source contamination, while a MAR less than 0.2 indicates that the samples have a low risk of source contamination [35]. Our findings revealed a significant frequency of MAR index >0.2 (84%) in the sampling area compared to MAR index <0.2 (16%), thereby indicating that the aquatic environment in the sampling area may be affected and contaminated with antibiotics from human, animal, and fish consumer sources. In this study, although the farmers claimed that they did not use any antibiotics on their farms, the findings revealed that the occurrence of resistance to multiple antibiotics was very high. This might have been due to the sampling site being located in an area near the city, agricultural or industrial sectors. Hence, the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics might have travelled through water from nearby farms to the shrimp ponds. In fact, antibiotics from animal feeds or medications are absorbed into the sediment causing bacterial selection in the nearby environment [76]. Another possibility was that the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in shrimp could be from post larvae, and the associated variety of drugs used in shrimp hatcheries [40]. The use of these drugs causes resistance to certain antimicrobials during post larvae rearing in the hatchery, which persists in the shrimp gut after transfer to the grow out ponds [77]. Furthermore, geographical location differences may influence the resistance level variance depending on sample collection [18].
The findings revealed that more than 55% of the isolates harbored between one to six DNA bands of plasmid, similar to those reported by Zanetti et al. [78] and You et al. [79]. Plasmid profile determination has been found to be very useful in epidemiological studies, and diagnosis and elucidation of mechanisms of drug resistance [80]. Plasmids are extra-chromosomal materials that allow the movement of genetic materials, including antimicrobial-resistant genes, between bacterial species and genera, through gene exchange processes; hence, increasing antibiotic resistance [81]. A study by Devi et al. [30] revealed that there was no correlation between the resistance of Vibrio to antibiotics and the presence of plasmid. Even though an isolate does not exhibit plasmids, the isolate can still show antibiotic resistance [82]. This statement was also supported by Zulkifli et al. [83], whose findings revealed that 53% of the isolates did not harbor any plasmid. However, they also showed multiple antibiotic resistance patterns to high number of antibiotics, which indicated that resistance to most of these antibiotics was of chromosomal origin, or on mobile genetic elements, that might help in the dissemination of resistant genes to other bacteria of human clinical significance. Nevertheless, most Vibrio isolates in this study lost their resistance to antibiotics following plasmid curing, even though some remained resistant. This indicates that the antibiotic resistance genes in Vibrio spp. isolated from cultured shrimp in this study were both chromosomal and plasmid mediated [36,73]. Although antimicrobial resistance in Vibrio spp. is typically acquired through plasmid transfer or antibiotic exposure, the role of plasmids in multiple antimicrobial resistances should be investigated further [74].
5. Conclusions
The findings thoroughly analyzed the occurrence, antibiotic resistance profiles, and plasmid profiling of Vibrio spp. isolated from cultured shrimp in Malaysia. Hence, antimicrobial resistance surveillance and drug usage monitoring in aquaculture should be encouraged to improve antibiotic management for public health and food safety in the industry. Furthermore, better knowledge of the molecular basis of resistance acquisition and transmission can aid in the development of new strategies to combat vibriosis for sustainable shrimp production.
W.O.H.-H.: Conceptualization, Validation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing, M.A.A.-S.: Data collection, Writing-review and editing, M.A.-S.: Data collection, Writing-review and editing, Y.K.C.: Data collection, Writing-review and editing, M.Z.-S.: Supervision, Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing-review and editing, I.N.: Supervision, Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing-review and editing, Funding acquisition, M.N.A.A.: Supervision, Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing-review and editing, W.H.S.: Data curation, Writing-review and editing, M.Y.I.-S.: Supervision, Conceptualization, Validation, Data curation, Writing-review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
All procedures involving shrimp in this study were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Universiti Putra Malaysia (AUP No: UPM/IACUC/AUP-R025/2021).
Not applicable.
We are thankful to all the members of the Aquatic Animal Health and Therapeutics Laboratory, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
The authors declare no conflict of interest
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Gross signs between healthy and unhealthy shrimp. (a,c); healthy shrimp had a large pigmented hepatopancreas (red arrow) and full midgut (green arrow). (b,d); unhealthy shrimp had a pale, atrophied hepatopancreas (black arrow) and an empty midgut (yellow arrow). (c,d) are hepatopancreases individually dissected from the shrimp.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Neighbor-joining phylogeny (Kimura 2-parameter model) of concatenated partial pyrH gene sequences from Vibrio spp. isolated from cultured shrimp. Bootstrap values represent 1000 replications. Reference sequences were acquired from the NCBI GenBank.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. (a) Antibiotic resistance profiles of Vibrio spp. before and after plasmid curing. The Y-axis represents the number of isolates resistant to the tested antibiotics, while the X-axis represents types of antibiotics (b) Number of isolates that changed to intermediate and susceptible from resistance after plasmid curing. AMP: Ampicillin, CTX: Cefotaxime, VA: Vancomycin, P: Penicillin G, KF: Cephalothin, K: Kanamycin, CAZ: Ceftazidime, F: Nitrofurantoin, CN: Gentamicin, E: Erythromycin, SXT: Sulfomethiozole-trimethoprim, FEP: Cefepime, TET: Tetracycline, C: Chloramphenicol, NOR: Norfloxacin, CIP: Ciprofloxacin.
Shrimp sampling data from seven shrimp farms in different geographical regions of Peninsular Malaysia.
| Sampling Site | State | Region | Types of Ponds | Number of Shrimp | Shrimp Species | Date | Coordinate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sg. Besar | Selangor | Central | Earthen | 30 | P. monodon | March 2019 | 3.7726 N 100.9666 E |
| Merlimau | Melaka | West | Earthen | 30 | P. monodon | April 2019 | 2.0631 N 102.2910 E |
| Mersing | Johor | South | Earthen | 30 | P. monodon | January 2020 | 2.2941 N 103.4902 E |
| Ayer Hitam | Kedah | North | HDPE lined earth | 30 | P. monodon | March 2020 | 6.2438 N 100.2220 E |
| Marang | Terengganu | East | HDPE lined earth | 30 | P. vannamei | December 2020 | 5.1846 N 103.1991 E |
| Manjung | Perak | North | Earthen | 30 | P. vannamei | January 2021 | 4.3722 N 100.6089 E |
| Banting | Selangor | Central | Earthen | 30 | P. monodon | March 2021 | 2.8222 N 101.4179 E |
Abbreviation: HDPE: High Density Polyethylene.
Total number of Vibrio spp. from the cultured shrimp based on the color of the colony on TCBS.
| Sampling Site | State | Total Number of Isolates, n (%) | Number of Isolates on TCBS, n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Colony | Yellow Colony | |||
| Sg. Besar | Selangor | 25 (11) | 13 (6) | 12 (5) |
| Banting | Selangor | 50 (22) | 43 (19) | 7 (3) |
| Merlimau | Melaka | 26 (12) | 25 (11) | 1 (0.4) |
| Mersing | Johor | 24 (11) | 23 (10) | 1 (0.4) |
| Ayer Hitam | Kedah | 35 (16) | 0 (0) | 35 (16) |
| Marang | Terengganu | 36 (16) | 30 (13) | 6 (3) |
| Manjung | Perak | 29 (13) | 15 (7) | 14 (6) |
| Total | 225 (100) | 149 (66) | 76 (34) | |
Abbreviation: TCBS, thiosulphate citrate bile salt sucrose.
Biochemical properties of Vibrio spp. isolated from cultured shrimp in Peninsular Malaysia.
| Species | Number of Isolates | TCBS | Gram Staining | Oxidase | Catalase | ONPG | SIM | TSI | LDC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sulphide Gas Production | Indole Production | Motility | A/A, K/A | Gas Production | H2S Production | ||||||||
| V. owensii | 15 | Y | negative | + | + | + | - | + | + | A/A | - | - | + |
| V. parahaemolyticus | 124 | G | negative | + | + | + | - | + | + | K/A | - | - | + |
| Vibrio spp. | 8 | Y | negative | + | + | - | - | + | + | A/A | - | - | - |
| V. campbellii | 18 | G | negative | + | + | - | - | + | + | A/A | - | - | - |
| V. rotiferianus | 12 | Y | negative | + | + | - | - | + | + | K/A | - | - | + |
| V. alginolyticus | 7 | Y | negative | + | + | - | - | + | + | A/A | - | - | + |
| V. communis | 20 | Y | negative | + | + | - | - | + | + | A/A | - | - | + |
| V. brasiliensis | 4 | Y | negative | + | + | + | - | + | + | A/A | - | - | - |
| V. xuii | 2 | Y | negative | + | + | - | - | + | + | A/A | - | - | - |
| V. harveyi | 2 | Y | negative | + | + | - | - | + | + | A/A | - | - | + |
| V. natriegens | 5 | Y | negative | + | + | - | - | - | + | A/A | - | - | - |
| V. hepatarius | 1 | Y | negative | + | + | - | - | + | + | K/A | - | - | - |
| P. damselae | 7 | G | negative | + | + | + | - | - | + | A/A | - | - | - |
The percentage of antibiotic resistance profiles of Vibrio spp. collected from seven shrimp farms in different geographical regions of Peninsular Malaysia.
| Vibrio spp. | No of Isolates | Percentage of Resistance Isolates (%) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TET | SXT | E | AMP | C | CN | NOR | K | FEP | CTX | CAZ | KF | CIP | F | VA | P | ||
| V. parahaemolyticus | 124 | 1 | 14 | 19 | 85 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 40 | 2 | 73 | 24 | 86 | 6 | 53 | 97 | 97 |
| V. campbellii | 18 | 6 | 0 | 44 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 56 | 11 | 0 | 50 | 56 |
| V. rotiferianus | 12 | 50 | 17 | 33 | 83 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 25 | 50 | 33 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 83 |
| V. owensii | 15 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 13 | 73 | 27 | 33 | 100 | 87 |
| V. alginolyticus | 7 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 86 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 57 | 0 | 57 | 14 | 100 | 0 | 43 | 100 | 100 |
| V. xuii | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 |
| V. harveyi | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 100 | 100 |
| V. natriegens | 5 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| V. hepatarius | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| V. communis | 20 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 95 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 70 | 5 | 5 | 90 | 90 |
| V. brasiliensis | 4 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 |
| Vibrio spp. | 8 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 100 | 100 |
| P. damselae | 7 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 86 | 71 |
Abbreviation: AMP: Ampicillin; CTX: Cefotaxime; VA: Vancomycin; P: Penicillin G; KF: Cephalothin; K: Kanamycin; CAZ: Ceftazidime; F: Nitrofurantoin; CN: Gentamicin; E: Erythromycin; SXT: Sulfomethiozole-trimethoprim; FEP: Cefepime; TET: Tetracycline; C: Chloramphenicol; NOR: Norfloxacin; CIP: Ciprofloxacin.
The overall of MAR index of Vibrio spp. collected from seven shrimp farms in different geographical regions of Peninsular Malaysia.
| AR Index Value | Group of MAR Index | Number of Resistant Antibiotics | Percentage of Isolates (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.06 | <0.2 | 1 | 0.4 |
| 0.13 | <0.2 | 2 | 4 |
| 0.19 | <0.2 | 3 | 12 |
| 0.25 | >0.2 | 4 | 15 |
| 0.31 | >0.2 | 5 | 16 |
| 0.38 | >0.2 | 6 | 22 |
| 0.44 | >0.2 | 7 | 13 |
| 0.50 | >0.2 | 8 | 6 |
| 0.56 | >0.2 | 9 | 6 |
| 0.63 | >0.2 | 10 | 2 |
| 0.69 | >0.2 | 11 | 3 |
| 0.75 | >0.2 | 12 | 0.4 |
Abbreviation: MAR: Multiple antibiotic resistance.
Antibiograms and the presence of plasmid of different Vibrio spp.
| Strain ID | Species | Antibiograms | Presence of Plasmid | No of Resistance Antibiotics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V22G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, CN, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, E, VA, P | + | 12 |
| V22Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, CN, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, VA, P | + | 11 |
| V5G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, CN, F, SXT, E, VA, P | + | 11 |
| V7Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CN, NOR, CTX, CAZ, KF, CIP, F, E, VA, P | + | 11 |
| V22Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, E, VA, P | + | 11 |
| V23Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, E, VA, P | + | 11 |
| T26G | V.parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, CIP, F, TET, SXT, VA, P | + | 11 |
| V3G2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, E, C, VA, P | + | 10 |
| V4G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, CIP, CN, F, VA, P | + | 10 |
| V7G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, CIP, F, E, VA, P | + | 10 |
| V8G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CN, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, VA, P | + | 10 |
| V5Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, VA, P | + | 10 |
| V7G3 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, VA, P | + | 10 |
| V15G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, VA, P | + | 10 |
| V23G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, K, CTX, K, F, SXT, E, VA, P | - | 10 |
| P10G | V.parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, VA, P | + | 9 |
| T31G | V.parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, FEP, VA, P | + | 9 |
| V2G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, SXT, VA, P | + | 9 |
| V3G3-1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, E, VA, P | + | 9 |
| V4G2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, CIP, F, VA, P | + | 9 |
| M5Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, E, CN, VA, P | - | 9 |
| M5G2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, CIP, F, SXT, C, VA, P | + | 9 |
| V7G3-1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, E, VA, P | + | 9 |
| T23G2 | V.parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | + | 8 |
| T38G1 | V.parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, CIP, F, VA, P | + | 8 |
| M5Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, CN, VA, P | - | 8 |
| V1G3 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | + | 8 |
| V7G2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | + | 8 |
| T39G1 | V.parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | + | 8 |
| MG2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, C, CTX, KF, SXT, E, VA, P | - | 8 |
| M12-3G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| J11Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 7 |
| T1G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T2G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T3G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T7G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T11G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T12Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T15G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T22 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T24G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| V6G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, VA, P | + | 7 |
| V22G2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX CAZ, KF, E, VA, P | + | 7 |
| V23Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| V3Y3 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, KF, F, E, VA, P | + | 7 |
| V3Y2G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, KF, F, E, VA, P | + | 7 |
| V3Y3G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, KF, F, E, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T10Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, KF, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T18G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T30G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T32G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T14G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T25G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 6 |
| M6-3 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| M6-4 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| M7-3Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| V24G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, KF, E, VA, P | + | 6 |
| V1G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, F, E, VA, P | + | 6 |
| V1G2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T21Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, FEP, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| V4Y3 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, E, VA, P | + | 6 |
| P14G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, CAZ, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| M12-3Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| J26Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T4G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T28G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| T29G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| M11-4Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CAZ, KF, FEP, VA, P | + | 6 |
| J29Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 6 |
| J21Y | V. parahaemolyticus | K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 6 |
| J31Y | V. parahaemolyticus | K, CTX, KF, CIP, VA, P | - | 6 |
| J29Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | - | 6 |
| V14G2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| MG2Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, F, VA, P | + | 6 |
| M2Y2-1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| V14G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, SXT, VA, P | + | 6 |
| V25G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, E, VA, P | + | 6 |
| V3G1 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, E, VA, P | + | 5 |
| V3Y2Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, E, VA, P | + | 5 |
| V24G2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, E, VA, P | + | 5 |
| P33G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| T19G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| M4-4G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, VA, P | + | 5 |
| T33 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, F, VA, P | + | 5 |
| M9-4Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| M10-3Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| M10-4 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| M11-3Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| M11-4G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| T8Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| T13G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| T16G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| J1Y | V. parahaemolyticus | K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| J10Y | V. parahaemolyticus | K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| J17Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 5 |
| J23 | V. parahaemolyticus | CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 5 |
| P21G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, E, VA, P | + | 4 |
| T6G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, F, VA, P | + | 4 |
| M4-3Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, VA, P | + | 4 |
| J14Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J15Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| M9-3G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| M9-3Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| M9-4G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J25Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| P29G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| M2-4Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, K, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J3Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | KF, F, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J6 | V. parahaemolyticus | KF, F, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J17Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | KF, F, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J18Y | V. parahaemolyticus | KF, F, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J9Y | V. parahaemolyticus | K, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J4Y | V. parahaemolyticus | CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| J24Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| S2-4 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, VA, P | + | 3 |
| S12-3 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, VA, P | + | 3 |
| S15-4 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| S19-3 | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, VA, P | + | 3 |
| M4-4Y | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| M5-3G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, VA, P | + | 3 |
| P22G | V. parahaemolyticus | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| J5Y | V. parahaemolyticus | KF, VA, P | - | 3 |
| J24Y2 | V. parahaemolyticus | KF, VA, P | - | 3 |
| J25Y1 | V. parahaemolyticus | KF, VA, P | - | 3 |
| K36Y1 | V. communis | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| K8Y1 | V. communis | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| K14Y1 | V. communis | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| K18Y1 | V. communis | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| K19Y1 | V. communis | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| K22Y | V. communis | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 6 |
| K33Y2 | V. communis | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 6 |
| K28Y1 | V. communis | AMP, CN, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 6 |
| K9Y | V. communis | AMP, CTX, KF, E, VA, P | - | 6 |
| P11Y | V. communis | AMP, CTX, KF, TET, VA, P | - | 6 |
| S1-3 | V. communis | AMP, CTX, CIP, VA, P | + | 5 |
| K4Y1 | V. communis | AMP, C, CTX, VA, P | - | 5 |
| K7Y | V. communis | AMP, K, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| K13Y | V. communis | E, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| S1-4 | V. communis | AMP, CTX, VA, P | + | 4 |
| K1Y1 | V. communis | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| P13Y2 | V. communis | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| P1Y | V. communis | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| P23Y2 | V. communis | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| P25G | V. communis | AMP, VA, P | + | 3 |
| S7-4 | V. campbellii | AMP, CTX, KF, CIP, VA, P | + | 6 |
| S23-4 | V. campbellii | AMP, CTX, KF, CIP, VA, P | + | 6 |
| S10-4 | V. campbellii | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| S17-3 | V. campbellii | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| S18-4 | V. campbellii | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| S31-3 | V. campbellii | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| S31-4 | V. campbellii | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| M8-4Y | V. campbellii | AMP, CTX, CAZ, VA, P | - | 5 |
| P24G | V. campbelliii | AMP, CTX, VA, P | - | 4 |
| P28G2 | V. campbelliii | AMP, TET, VA, P, | - | 4 |
| P31Y | V. campbellii | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| S10-3 | V. campbellii | AMP, KF, VA, P | + | 4 |
| P21Y | V. campbellii | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| P25Y1 | V. campbellii | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| P32Y | V. campbellii | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| P8Y | V. campbellii | AMP, K, P | - | 3 |
| P25Y2 | V. campbellii | AMP, P | - | 2 |
| P3Y1 | V. campbellii | AMP, P | - | 2 |
| T17G4 | V. owensii | AMP, FEP, CTX, CAZ, KF, K, CIP, VA, P | + | 9 |
| T34Y | V. owensii | AMP, FEP, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, E, VA, P | + | 9 |
| T20G2 | V. owensii | AMP, K, FEP, CTX, KF, CIP, VA, P | + | 8 |
| T23G1 | V. owensii | AMP, K, FEP, CTX, KF, CIP, VA, P | + | 8 |
| T23G5 | V. owensii | AMP, K, FEP, CTX, CIP, VA, P | + | 7 |
| K16Y2 | V. owensii | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 7 |
| K38Y2 | V. owensii | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| M6Y | V. owensii | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| T5Y1 | V. owensii | AMP, FEP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 7 |
| K3Y2 | V. owensii | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| K16Y1 | V. owensii | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| K21Y | V. owensii | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 6 |
| K38Y1 | V. owensii | AMP, CTX, F, E, VA, P | - | 6 |
| P27G | V. owensii | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| P34Y | V. owensii | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| K34Y2 | V. rotiferianus | AMP, FEP, CTX, CAZ, TET, SXT, E, VA, P | + | 9 |
| K37Y1 | V. rotiferianus | AMP, FEP, CTX, KF, F, TET, E, VA, P | + | 9 |
| P20Y1 | V. rotiferianus | AMP, FEP, CTX, CAZ, KF, TET, VA, P | - | 8 |
| K26Y | V. rotiferianus | AMP, CTX, CAZ, TET, SXT, E, VA, P | + | 8 |
| M5-3Y | V. rotiferianus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 7 |
| S15-3 | V. rotiferianus | AMP, K, KF, E, VA, P | + | 6 |
| K17Y1 | V. rotiferianus | AMP, CTX, TET, VA, P | - | 5 |
| S24-4 | V. rotiferianus | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| K30Y | V. rotiferianus | AMP, VA, P | + | 3 |
| P12Y | V. rotiferianus | AMP, CTX, P | - | 3 |
| K17Y2 | V. rotiferianus | TET, VA, P | - | 3 |
| P7G | V. rotiferianus | P | - | 1 |
| V1Y | V. natriegens | E, CN, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | - | 9 |
| V1G2Y | V. natriegens | SXT, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| V1Y2 | V. natriegens | K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | + | 7 |
| V2Y | V. natriegens | K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | - | 7 |
| V4Y1 | V. natriegens | K, CTX, CAZ, KF, F, VA, P | - | 7 |
| K8Y2 | V.brasiliensis | AMP, K, KF, VA, P | - | 5 |
| K40Y | V. brasiliensis | AMP, KF, E, VA, P | + | 5 |
| K6Y | V. brasiliensis | AMP, KF, VA, P | + | 4 |
| K24Y | V. brasiliensis | K, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| P19Y | V. harveyi | AMP, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 6 |
| P23Y1 | V. harveyi | AMP, VA, P | - | 3 |
| P29Y | V. xuii | AMP, KF, VA, P | - | 4 |
| P13Y1 | V. xuii | KF, VA, P | - | 3 |
| K37Y2 | V. alginolyticus | AMP, CN, K, CTX, KF, F, TET, VA, P | + | 9 |
| K27Y1 | V. alginolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, CAZ, KF, VA, P | + | 7 |
| K36Y2 | V. alginolyticus | AMP, K, KF, F, E, VA, P | - | 7 |
| K5Y | V. alginolyticus | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 6 |
| K41Y | V. alginolyticus | AMP, CTX, KF, VA, P | + | 5 |
| J3Y1 | V. alginolyticus | KF, F, VA, P | - | 4 |
| K27Y2 | V. alginolyticus | AMP, VA, P | + | 3 |
| M13Y | V. hepatarius | AMP, K, CTX, KF, F, VA, P | - | 7 |
| S6-3 | Vibrio spp. | AMP, KF, CIP, VA, P | + | 5 |
| S3-4 | Vibrio spp. | CTX, VA, P | - | 3 |
| S3-3 | Vibrio spp. | VA, P | - | 2 |
| S5-4 | Vibrio spp. | VA, P | - | 2 |
| S21-3 | Vibrio spp. | VA, P | + | 2 |
| S25-3 | Vibrio spp. | VA, P | + | 2 |
| S34-4 | Vibrio spp. | VA, P | - | 2 |
| S35-4 | Vibrio spp. | VA, P | - | 2 |
| M14-4Y | P. damselae | AMP, CN, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| M8-4G | P. damselae | AMP, K, CTX, KF, VA, P | - | 6 |
| S27-3 | P. damselea | AMP, K, VA, P | + | 4 |
| M2-4G | P. damselae | AMP, K, VA, P | + | 4 |
| M1-4Y | P. damselae | AMP, E, VA, P | - | 4 |
| M2-3Y | P. damselae | AMP, E, VA, P | - | 4 |
| M4Y1G | P. damselea | AMP, VA | + | 2 |
Abbreviation: AMP: Ampicillin; CTX: Cefotaxime; VA: Vancomycin; P: Penicillin G; KF: Cephalothin; K: Kanamycin; CAZ: Ceftazidime; F: Nitrofurantoin; CN: Gentamicin; E: Erythromycin; SXT: Sulfomethiozole-trimethoprim; FEP: Cefepime; TET: Tetracycline; C: Chloramphenicol; NOR: Norfloxacin; CIP: Ciprofloxacin; +: Isolates that harbored plasmid; -: Isolates that did not harbored plasmid.
Plasmid profiles of the resistance Vibrio isolates (n = 125) in this study.
| No of Plasmid | Plasmid Profiles | Plasmid Size (kb) | No of Isolates (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1.3 | 4 (3.2) |
| 2 | 3.0 | 1 (0.8) | |
| 3 | 5.0 | 2 (1.6) | |
| 4 | above 10.0 | 65 (52.0) | |
| 2 | 5 | 1.0, 3.0 | 1 (0.8) |
| 6 | 1.0, above 10.0 | 2 (1.6) | |
| 7 | 1.5, 3.0 | 1 (0.8) | |
| 8 | 2.5, above 10.0 | 2 (1.6) | |
| 9 | 3.0, 5.0 | 1 (0.8) | |
| 10 | 3.0, above 10.0 | 1 (0.8) | |
| 11 | 4.0, above 10.0 | 1 (0.8) | |
| 12 | 5.0, above 10.0 | 9 (7.2) | |
| 13 | 6.0, above 10.0 | 1 (0.8) | |
| 3 | 14 | 1.3, 3.0, above 10.0 | 2 (1.6) |
| 15 | 1.5, 2.5, above 10.0 | 1 (0.8) | |
| 16 | 2.0, 5.0, above 10.0 | 2 (1.6) | |
| 17 | 2.5, 5.0, above10.0 | 5 (4.0) | |
| 18 | 3.0, 5.0, above10.0 | 13 (10.4) | |
| 4 | 19 | 1.0, 3.0, 5.0, above 10.0 | 2 (1.6) |
| 20 | 1.5, 3.0, 5.0, above 10.0 | 2 (1.6) | |
| 5 | 21 | 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, above 10.0 | 1 (0.8) |
| 22 | 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, above 10.0 | 2 (1.6) | |
| 6 | 23 | 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, above 10.0 | 4 (3.2) |
| Total | 125 (100) |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Yano, Y.; Hamano, K.; Satomi, M.; Tsutsui, I.; Ban, M.; Aue-Umneoy, D. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Vibrio species related to food safety isolated from shrimp cultured at inland ponds in Thailand. Food Control; 2014; 38, pp. 30-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.019]
2. FAO. State of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the World; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 9781424464968
3. Xu, X.; Cheng, J.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Xie, T. Prevalence, characterization, and antibiotic susceptibility of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from retail aquatic products in North China. BMC Microbiol.; 2016; 16, 32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-016-0650-6]
4. Verdegem, M.C.J. Nutrient discharge from aquaculture operations in function of system design and production environment. Rev. Aquac.; 2013; 5, pp. 158-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/raq.12011]
5. Allcock, S.; Young, E.H.; Holmes, M.; Gurdasani, D.; Dougan, G.; Sandhu, M.S.; Török, M.E. Antimicrobial resistance in human populations: Challenges and opportunities. Glob. Health Epidemiol. Genom.; 2017; 2, pp. 1-7.
6. Retamales, R. Bacterial community composition in a semi-intensive shrimp culture of L. vannamei during El Niño 1997-98 and La Niña 1999. Investig. Mar.; 2001; 30, pp. 198-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-71782002030100086]
7. Bermudez-Almada, M.C.; Espinosa-Plascencia, A. The use of antibiotics in shrimp farming. Health Environ. Aquac.; 2012; 1, pp. 199-214.
8. Rico, A.; Oliveira, R.; McDonough, S.; Matser, A.; Khatikarn, J.; Satapornvanit, K.; Van den Brink, P.J. Use, fate and ecological risks of antibiotics applied in tilapia cage farming in Thailand. Environ. Pollut.; 2014; 191, pp. 8-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.04.002]
9. Nsofor, C.A.; Nwokenkwo, V.N.; Ohale, C.U. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from various clinical specimens in south-East Nigeria. MOJ Cell Sci. Rep.; 2016; 3, pp. 1-5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15406/mojcsr.2016.03.00054]
10. Azzam-Sayuti, M.; Ina-Salwany, M.Y.; Zamri-Saad, M.; Yusof, M.T.; Annas, S.; Najihah, M.Y.; Liles, M.R.; Monir, M.S.; Zaidi, Z.; Amal, M.N.A. The prevalence, putative virulence genes, and antibiotic resistance profiles of Aeromonas spp. isolated from cultivated freshwater fish in peninsular Malaysia. Aquaculture; 2021; 540, 736719. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736719]
11. Elmahdi, S.; DaSilva, L.V.; Parveen, S. Antibiotic resistance of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus in various countries: A review. Food Microbiol.; 2016; 57, pp. 128-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2016.02.008]
12. Sambhu, C.; Mamdouh, H.; Mohammad, B.; Khalid, K.; Osama, A.; Hazeem, F.; Abdulmohsen, S.; Nasser, A. Green water technology for the production of Pacific white shrimp Penaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931). Indian J. Fish.; 2017; 64, pp. 43-49.
13. Hong, X.; Lu, L.; Xu, D. Progress in research on acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND). Aquac. Int.; 2016; 24, pp. 577-593. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10499-015-9948-x]
14. Ng, W.; Koh, C. The utilization and mode of action of organic acids in the feeds of cultured aquatic animals. Rev. Aquac.; 2016; 9, pp. 342-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/raq.12141]
15. Chaweepack, T.; Muenthaisong, B.; Chaweepack, S.; Kamei, K. The potential of Galangal (Alpinia galanga Linn.) extract against the pathogens that cause white feces syndrome and acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) in Pacific White Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Int. J. Biol.; 2015; 7, pp. 8-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijb.v7n3p8]
16. De Schryver, P.; Defoirdt, T.; Sorgeloos, P. Early mortality syndrome outbreaks: A microbial management issue in shrimp farming?. PLoS Pathog.; 2014; 10, e1003919. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003919] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24763380]
17. Zorriehzahra, M.J.; Banaederakhshan, R. Early mortality syndrome (EMS) as new emerging threat in shrimp industry. Adv. Amin. Vet. Sci.; 2015; 3, pp. 64-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14737/journal.aavs/2015/3.2s.64.72]
18. Lesley, M.B.; Velnetti, L.; Cheah, Y.K.; Son, R.; Kasing, A.; Samuel, L. Antibiotic resistance and plasmid profiling of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from cockles (Anadara granosa) at Tanjung Karang, Kuala Selangor. Int. Food Res. J.; 2011; 18, pp. 1183-1188.
19. Letchumanan, V.; Chan, K.G.; Lee, L.H. An insight of traditional plasmid curing in Vibrio species. Front. Microbiol.; 2015; 6, 753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00735]
20. Amalina, N.Z.; Santha, S.; Zulperi, D.; Amal, M.N.A.; Yusof, M.T.; Zamri-Saad, M.; Ina-Salwany, M.Y. Prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility and plasmid profiling of Vibrio spp. isolated from cultured groupers in Peninsular Malaysia. BMC Microbiol.; 2019; 19, 251. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-019-1624-2]
21. Liu, X.; Wang, D.; Wang, H.; Feng, E.; Zhu, L. Curing of plasmid pXO1 from Bacillus anthracis using plasmid incompatibility. PLoS ONE; 2012; 7, e29875.
22. Muthukrishnan, S.; Defoirdt, T.; Ina-Salwany, M.Y.; Yusoff, F.M.; Shariff, M.; Ismail, S.I.; Natrah, I. Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio harveyi causing Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Disease (AHPND) in Penaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) isolated from Malaysian shrimp ponds. Aquaculture; 2019; 511, 734227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734227]
23. Kua, B.C.; Mohd Fariduddin, O.; Marzukhi, O.; Ahmad Iftikhar, A.M. Mortality outbreaks in whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannamei Boone 1931) cultured in Peninsular Malaysia. Asian Fish. Sci.; 2018; 31, pp. 242-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.2018.31.S1.017]
24. Haldar, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Sugimoto, N.; Das, S.; Chowdhury, N.; Hinenoya, A.; Asakura, M.; Yamasaki, S. Identification of Vibrio campbellii isolated from diseased farm-shrimps from south India and establishment of its pathogenic potential in an Artemia model. Microbiology; 2011; 157, pp. 179-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.041475-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847009]
25. Jayasinghe, C.V.L.; Ahmed, S.B.N.; Kariyawasam, M.G.I.U. The isolation and identification of Vibrio species in marine shrimp of Sri Lanka. J. Food Agric.; 2008; 1, pp. 36-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4038/jfa.v1i1.1838]
26. Buller, N.B. Bacteria and Fungi from Fish and Other Aquatic Animals: A Practice Identification Manual; 2nd ed. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2015.
27. Chimetto, T.L.; Brocchi, M.; Gondo, M.L.; Thompson, C.C.; Gomez-Gil, B.; Thompson, F. Genomic diversity of Vibrios associated with the Brazilian coral Mussismilia hispida and its sympatric zoanthids (Palythoa caribaeorum, Palythoa variabilis and Zoanthus solanderi). J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2009; 106, pp. 1818-1826. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04149.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19291243]
28. Noorlis, A.; Ghazali, F.M.; Cheah, Y.K.; Tuan Zainazor, T.C.; Wong, W.C.; Tunung, R.; Nishibuchi, M.; Nakaguchi, Y.; Son, R.; Pui, C.F. Antibiotic resistance and biosafety of Vibrio cholera and Vibrio parahaemolyticus from freshwater fish at retail level. Int. Food Res. J.; 2011; 18, pp. 59-66.
29. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2016; 33, pp. 1870-1874. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054]
30. Devi, R.; Surendran, P.; Chakraborty, K. Antibiotic resistance and plasmid profiling of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from shrimp farms along the Southwest coast of India. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2009; 25, pp. 2005-2012. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11274-009-0101-8]
31. Gufe, C.; Canaan Hodobo, T.; Mbonjani, B.; Majonga, O.; Marumure, J.; Musari, S.; Jongi, G.; Makaya, P.V.; Machakwa, J. Antimicrobial profiling of bacteria isolated from fish sold at informal market in Mufakose, Zimbabwe. Int. J. Microbiol.; 2019; 2019, 8759636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8759636]
32. Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute. Methods for Antimicrobial Dilution and Disk Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Facteria; Approved Guideline; 2nd ed. CLSI document M45-A2: Wayne, PA, USA, 2011.
33. Bauer, A.W.; Kirby, W.M.M.; Shenis, J.C.; Turck, M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am. J. Clin. Pathol.; 1966; 45, 493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/45.4_ts.493]
34. Ottaviani, D.; Masini, L.; Bacchiocchi, S. A biochemical protocol for the isolation and identification of current species of Vibrio in seafood. J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2003; 95, pp. 1277-1284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02105.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14633002]
35. Kathleen, M.M.; Samuel, L.; Felecia, C.; Reagan, E.L.; Kasing, A.; Lesley, M.; Toh, S.C. Antibiotic resistance of diverse bacteria from aquaculture in Borneo. Int. J. Microbiol.; 2016; 2016, 2164761. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2164761] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27746817]
36. Reboucas, R.H.; De Sousa, O.V.; Lima, A.S.; Vasconcelos, F.R.; de Carvalho, P.B. Antimicrobial resistance profile of Vibrio species isolated from marine shrimp farming environments (Litopenaeus vannamei) at Ceara, Brazil. Environ. Res.; 2011; 111, pp. 21-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2010.09.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20970784]
37. Sawabe, T.; Kumar, R.; Fukui, Y.; Satomi, M.; Matsushima, R.; Thompson, F.L.; Gomez-Gil, B.; Christen, R.; Maruyama, F.; Kurokawa, K. et al. Updating the Vibrio clades defined by multilocus sequence phylogeny: Proposal of eight new clades, and the description of Vibrio tritonius sp. nov. Front. Microbiol.; 2013; 4, 414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00414]
38. Baker-Austin, C.; Trinanes, J.; Gonzalez-Escalona, N.; Martinez-Urtaza, J. Non-Cholera vibrios: The microbial barometer of climate change. Trends Microbiol.; 2017; 25, pp. 76-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.09.008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27843109]
39. Chatterjee, S.; Haldar, S. Vibrio related diseases in aquaculture and development of rapid and accurate identification methods. J. Mar. Sci. Res. Dev. S; 2012; 1, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2155-9910.S1-002]
40. Banerjee, S.; Ooi, M.C.; Shariff, M.; Khatoon, H. Antibiotic resistant Salmonella and Vibrio associated with farmed Litopenaeus vannamei. Sci. World J.; 2012; 2021, 130136.
41. Pruzzo, C.; Huq, A.; Colwell, R.R. Pathogenic vibrio species in the marine and estuarine environment. Oceans and Health: Pathogens in the Marine Environment; Belkin, S.; Colwell, R.R. Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 217-252.
42. Baker-Austin, C.; Stockley, L.; Rangdale, R.; Martinez-Urtaza, J. Environmental occurrence and clinical impact of Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus: A European perspective. Environ. Microbiol. Rep.; 2010; 2, pp. 7-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-2229.2009.00096.x]
43. Hazen, T.H.; Lafon, P.C.; Garrett, N.M.; Lowe, T.M.; Silberger, D.J.; Rowe, L.A. Insights into the environmental reservoir of pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus using comparative genomics. Front. Microbiol.; 2015; 6, 204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00204]
44. Kriem, M.R.; Banni, B.; El Bouchtaoui, H.; Hamama, A.; El Marrakchi, A.; Chaouqy, N.; Robert-Pillot, A.; Quilici, M.L. Prevalence of Vibrio spp. in raw shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) and performance of a chromogenic medium for the isolation of Vibrio strains. Lett. Appl. Microbiol.; 2015; 61, pp. 224-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lam.12455]
45. O’Hara, C.M.; Sowers, E.G.; Bopp, C.A.; Duda, S.B.; Strockbine, N.A. Accuracy of six commercially available systems for identification of members of the family Vibrionaceae. J. Clin. Microbiol.; 2003; 41, pp. 5654-5659. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.41.12.5654-5659.2003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14662957]
46. Garibyan, L.; Avashia, N. 2013. Research techniques made simple: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR). J. Investig. Dermatol.; 2013; 133, e6.
47. Amatul-Samahah, M.; Muthukrishnan, S.; Omar, W.H.H.; Ikhsan, N.; Md Yasin, I. Vibrio spp. associated with acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) found in penaeid shrimp pond from the east coast of peninsular Malaysia. J. Environ. Biol.; 2020; 41, pp. 1160-1170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22438/jeb/41/5(SI)/MS_07]
48. Rajendhran, J.; Gunasekaran, P. Microbial phylogeny and diversity: Small subunit ribosomal RNA sequence analysis and beyond. Microbiol. Res.; 2011; 166, pp. 99-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2010.02.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20223646]
49. Zhang, C.; Xu, X.; Pu, S.; Huang, S.; Sun, J.; Yang, S.; Zhang, L. Characterization of carbapenemases, extended spectrum β-lactamases, quinolone resistance and aminoglycoside resistance determinants in carbapenem-non-susceptible Escherichia coli from a teaching hospital in Chongqing, Southwest China. Infect. Genet. Evol.; 2014; 27, pp. 271-276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2014.07.031]
50. Voet, D.; Voet, J.G. Biochemistry; 3rd ed. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004.
51. Chimetto, L.A.; Cleenwerck, I.; Alves, N.J.; Silva, B.S.; Brocchi, M.; Willems, A.; De Vos, P.; Thompson, F.L. Vibrio communis sp. nov., isolated from the marine animals Mussismilia hispida, Phyllogorgia dilatata, Palythoa caribaeorum, Palythoa variabilis and Litopenaeus vannamei. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.; 2011; 61, pp. 362-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.019729-0]
52. Thompson, F.L.; Gomez-Gil, B.; Ribeiro-Vasconcelos, A.T.; Sawabe, T. Multilocus sequence analysis reveals that Vibrio harveyi and Vibrio campbellii form distinct species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2007; 73, pp. 4279-4285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00020-07]
53. Pascual, J.; Macián, M.C.; Arahal, D.R.; Garay, E.; Pujalte, M.J. Multilocus sequence analysis of the central clade of the genus Vibrio by using the 16S rRNA, recA, pyrH, rpoD, gyrB, rctB and toxR genes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.; 2010; 60, pp. 154-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.010702-0]
54. Thompson, F.L.; Gevers, D.; Thompson, C.C.; Dawyndt, P.; Naser, S.; Hoste, B.; Munn, C.B.; Swings, J. Phylogeny and molecular identification of vibrios on the basis of multilocus sequence analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2005; 71, pp. 5107-5115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.9.5107-5115.2005]
55. Zarei, M.; Borujeni, M.P.; Jamnejad, A.; Khezrzadeh, M. Seasonal prevalence of Vibrio species in retail shrimp with an emphasis on Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Food Control; 2012; 25, pp. 107-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.10.024]
56. Jacksic, S.; Suncica, U.; Petrak, T.; Bazulic, D.; Lada, G.K. Occurrence of Vibrio spp. in sea fish, shrimp and bivalve mollusks harvested from Adriatic Sea. Food Control; 2002; 13, pp. 491-493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0956-7135(02)00027-0]
57. Letchumanan, V.; Yin, W.F.; Lee, L.H.; Chan, K.G. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from retail shrimp in Malaysia. Front. Microbiol.; 2015; 30, pp. 6-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00033] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25688239]
58. Koralage, M.S.; Alter, T.; Pichpol, D.; Strauch, E.; Zessin, K.H.; Huehn, S. Prevalence and molecular characteristics of Vibrio spp. isolated from preharvest shrimp of the Northwestern Province of Sri Lanka. J. Food Prot.; 2012; 75, pp. 1846-1850. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-115] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23043835]
59. Sperling, L.; Alter, T.; Huehn, S. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Vibrio spp. in retail and farm shrimp in Ecuador. J. Food Prot.; 2015; 78, pp. 2089-2092. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-160] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26555534]
60. Ahmed, H.A.; El Bayomi, R.M.; Hussein, M.A.; Khedr, M.H.E.; Abo Remela, E.M.; El-Ashram, A.M.M. Molecular characterization, antibiotic resistance pattern and biofilm formation of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. cholerae isolated from crustaceans and humans. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2018; 274, pp. 31-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.03.013]
61. Tanil, G.B.; Radu, S.; Nishibuchi, M.; Rahim, R.A.; Napis, S.; Maurice, L.; Gunsalam, J.W. Characterization of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from coastal seawater in Peninsular Malaysia. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health; 2005; 36, pp. 940-945.
62. Costa, R.A.; Colares, L.P.; Lima, R.A.; Vieira, R.H.S.D.F.; de Sousa, S.V. Effect of seawater on the activity of antibiotics against Vibrios isolated from the hemolymph of cultured pacific white shrimp. J. World Aqua. Soc.; 2014; 43, pp. 727-732. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2012.00590.x]
63. Chitov, T.; Wongdao, S.; Thatum, W.; Puprae, T.; Sisuwan, P. Occurrence of potentially pathogenic Vibrio species in raw, processed, and ready-to-eat seafood and seafood products. Maejo Int. J. Sci. Technol.; 2009; 3, pp. 88-98.
64. Baffone, W.; Pianetti, A.; Bruscolini, F.; Barbieri, E.; Citterio, B. Occurrence and expression of virulence-related properties of Vibrio species isolated from widely consumed seafood products. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2000; 5, pp. 9-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(99)00189-0]
65. Abd-Elghany, S.M.; Sallam, K.I. Occurrence and molecular identification of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in retail shellfish in Mansoura, Egypt. Food Control; 2013; 33, pp. 399-405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.03.024]
66. Caburlotto, G.; Suffredini, E.; Toson, M.; Fasolato, L.; Antonetti, P.; Zambon, M.; Manfrin, A. Occurrence and molecular characterisation of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in crustaceans commercialised in Venice area, Italy. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2016; 220, pp. 39-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.12.007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26773255]
67. Sullivan, T.J.; Neigel, J.E. Effects of temperature and salinity on prevalence and intensity of infection of blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus, by Vibrio cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus, and V. vulnificus in Louisiana. J. Invertebr. Pathol.; 2018; 151, pp. 82-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2017.11.004]
68. Smith, P. Antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture. Rev. Sci. Tech.; 2008; 27, pp. 243-264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20506/rst.27.1.1799] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18666490]
69. Sudha, S.; Mridula, C.; Silvester, R.; Abdulla, M.H. Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of pathogenic Vibrios in shellfishes from Cochin market. Indian J. Geo Mar. Sci.; 2014; 43, pp. 815-824.
70. Vaseeharan, B.; Ramasamy, P.; Murugan, T.; Chen, J.C. In vitro susceptibility of antibiotics against Vibrio spp. and Aeromonas spp. isolated from Penaeus monodon hatcheries and ponds. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents; 2005; 26, pp. 285-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.07.005]
71. Jayasree, L.; Janakiram, P.; Madhavi, R. Characterization of Vibrio spp. associated with diseased shrimp from culture ponds of Andhra Pradesh (India). J. World Aquac. Soc.; 2006; 37, pp. 523-532. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2006.00066.x]
72. Srinivasan, P.; Ramasamy, P. Occurrence, distribution and antibiotic resistance patterns of Vibrio species associated with viral diseased shrimp of South Indian aquaculture environment. Int. J. Agric. Sci.; 2009; 1, 1.
73. Albuquerque, C.R.; Araújo, R.L.; Souza, O.V.; Vieira, R.H.S.D.F. Antibiotic-resistant Vibrios in farmed shrimp. BioMed Res. Int.; 2015; 2015, 505914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/505914]
74. Ottaviani, D.; Bacchiocchi, I.; Masini, L.; Leoni, F.; Carraturo, A.; Giammarioli, M.; Sbaraglia, G. Antimicrobial susceptibility of potentially pathogenic halophilic vibrios isolated from seafood. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents; 2001; 18, pp. 135-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-8579(01)00358-2]
75. Sahilah, A.M.; Laila, R.; Sallehuddin, H.; Hassan, O.; Abdullah, A.; Ariffin, A. Antibiotic resistance and molecular typing among cockle (Anadara granosa) strains of Vibrio parahaemolyticus by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based analysis. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2013; 30, pp. 649-659. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11274-013-1494-y]
76. Mohamad, N.; Amal, M.N.A.; Saad, M.Z.; Yasin, I.S.M.; Zulkiply, N.A.; Mustafa, M.; Nasruddin, N.S. Virulence-associated genes and antibiotic resistance patterns of Vibrio spp. isolated from cultured marine fishes in Malaysia. BMC Vet. Res.; 2019; 15, 176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1907-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31138199]
77. Tendencia, E.A.; De La Pena, L.D. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria from shrimp ponds. Aquaculture; 2001; 195, pp. 193-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00570-6]
78. Zanetti, S.; Spanu, T.; Deriu, A.; Romano, L.; Sechi, L.A.; Fadda, G. In vitro susceptibility of Vibrio spp. isolated from the environment. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents; 2001; 17, pp. 407-409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-8579(01)00307-7]
79. You, K.G.; Bong, C.W.; Lee, C.W. Antibiotic resistance and plasmid profiling of Vibrio spp. in tropical waters of Peninsular Malaysia. Environ. Monit. Assess.; 2016; 188, 171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5163-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26884358]
80. Thomas, B.T.; Agu, G.C.; Makanjuola, S.O.; Davies, A. Plasmid profiling and antibiotic resistance of extended spectrum beta lactamases producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa expressing Ampc beta-lactamase enzyme. Am. Eurasian J. Sci. Res.; 2015; 10, pp. 109-117.
81. Carattoli, A. Plasmids and the spread of resistance. Int. J. Med. Microbiol.; 2013; 303, pp. 298-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2013.02.001]
82. Manjusha, S.; Sarita, G.B. Characterization of plasmids from multiple antibiotic resistant Vibrios isolated from molluscan and crustacean of Kerala. Int. Food Res. J.; 2013; 20, pp. 77-86.
83. Zulkifli, Y.; Alitheen, N.B.; Raha, A.R.; Yeap, S.K.; Marlina, S.R.; Nishibuchi, M. Antibiotic resistance and plasmid profiling of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from cockles in Padang, Indonesia. Int. Food Res. J.; 2009; 16, pp. 53-58.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Chin, Yong Kit 1 ; Zamri-Saad, Mohd 3
; Natrah, I 4
; Mohammad Noor Azmai Amal 5
; Satyantini, Woro Hastuti 6 ; Md Yasin Ina-Salwany 7
1 Aquatic Animal Health and Therapeutics Laboratory, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia
2 Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia; Freshwater Fisheries Research Division, Fisheries Research Institute Glami Lemi, Jelebu 71650, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
3 Aquatic Animal Health and Therapeutics Laboratory, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia; Department of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosis, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia
4 Aquatic Animal Health and Therapeutics Laboratory, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia; Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia
5 Aquatic Animal Health and Therapeutics Laboratory, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia; Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia
6 Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya 60115, Indonesia
7 Aquatic Animal Health and Therapeutics Laboratory, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia; Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400 UPM, Selangor, Malaysia; Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya 60115, Indonesia