Você está na página 1de 15

Research Signpost

37/661 (2), Fort P.O., Trivandrum-695 023, Kerala, India








Probiotics: Production, Evaluation and Uses in Animal Feed, 2009:
ISBN: 978-81-308-0323-4 Editors: Nelson Prez Guerra and Lorenzo Pastrana Castro
4
The use of probiotic in fish and
shrimp aquaculture. A review


Maurilio Lara-Flores
1
and Gabriel Aguirre-Guzmn
2
1
Centro de Ecologa, Pesqueras y Oceanografa del Golfo de Mxico de la
Universidad Autnoma de Campeche, Av. Agustn Melgar y Juan de la Barrera
S/N, C. P. 240230, Campeche, Campeche Mxico;
2
Facultad de Medicina
Veterinaria y Zootecnia de la Universidad Autnoma de Tamaulipas, Km. 5
Carr. Cd. Victoria a Mante, C.P. 87000, Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mxico
E-mail: gabaguirre@uat.edu.mx, gaguirre_guzman@hotmail.com

Abstract
In last decade, the total world fishery production
decreased slightly and the human consumption for
aquatic product increased. The reduction in capture
fisheries was partly compensated for the fast growth
of aquaculture industry. The need for enhanced
disease resistance, feed efficiency, and growth
performance of cultured organisms is substantial for
various sectors of this industry. If growth performance


Correspondence/Reprint request: Dr. Maurilio Lara-Flores, Centro de Ecologa, Pesqueras y Oceanografa del Golfo
de Mxico de la Universidad Autnoma de Campeche, Av. Agustn Melgar y Juan de la Barrera S/N C. P. 240230
Campeche, Campeche Mxico. E-mail: maurlara@uacam.mx, maurilio_lara@yahoo.com.mx
Maurilio Lara-Flores & Gabriel Aguirre-Guzmn
2
and feed efficiency are increased in commercial aquaculture, the costs
productions are likely to be reduced. Also if more aquatic organisms are able
to resist diseases and survive the subsequent cost of medication and overall
production costs would be reduced. Hormones, antibiotics, ionophers and some
salts compounds have been used at some extent to prevent disease and as
growth promoters; however, their inadequate application can produce adverse
disorders, such as hormone imbalance, poisoning and predisposition to disease
development. In the search of new options, several studies have been carried
out to test new compounds, from which the aquaculture industry has developed
the concept of functional additives. Among these additives, the additions of
microorganisms to the diets, named probiotics, has shown to improve the
energy expenditure derived from other sources such as carbohydrates and
increase the incorporations of protein for growth; increase the immunity and
disease resistance of the host organism. The use of probiotics in aquaculture
activity is in the beginnings, since that the gastrointestinal microbiota of
aquatic organisms has been poorly characterized; and their effects not be study
extensive. This review summarizes and evaluates current knowledge of the use
and the action of the probiotic in fish and shrimp culture; and the potential for
further application of this in aquaculture production.

1. Introduction
The human requirement for aquatics products for consumption and
aquarist activity is higher and this is not satisfied for the world fishery
production, those open an extensive range of opportunities to aquaculture
industry for composes this requirement [1]. Aquaculture has become an
important economic activity in many countries [2]. However, this aquaculture
develop show many problems as widespread epizootics, feed efficiency and
growth performance [3-5]. This is principal caused by the large-scale
production facilities, where aquatic animals are exposed to stressful
conditions, problems related to disease, inadequate balance of nutrient in the
artificial diets an deterioration of environmental conditions, since the
physiological stress is one of the primary contributing factors of aquatic
organisms disease, poor growth and mortality in aquaculture [6-8].
In the present, the principal aims of the aquaculture industry are increase
the growth or survival performance, feed efficiency, and resistance of aquatic
organisms which show a positive effect on production costs [9]. Hormones,
antibiotics, ionophers and some salts compounds have been used at some
extent to prevent disease and as growth promoters; however, their inadequate
application show a negative effects on aquaculture production and
environment [10].
Probiotic in aquaculture
3
Functional additive, as probiotics, is a new concept on aquaculture [11];
where the additions of microorganisms on diets show a positive effect on
growth caused by the best use of carbohydrates, protein, and energy [12-16],
diminishing mortality by disease, antagonism to pathogen, better microbial
intestinal balance and in the environment [3,12,17].
The concept of probiotics was originally used by Lilley and Stillwell [18]
to mean a substance (s) that stimulates growth of other microorganisms [19].
Parker in 1974 modified the definition to organisms and substances which
contribute to intestinal balance. Fuller [20] revised the definitions as A live
microbial feed supplement which beneficially affects the host animal by
improving its intestinal microbial balance. This revised definition has put
forward the importance of live cells as the essential component of a potential
probiotic and it clears the confusion created by the use of term substances.
However, an effect on intestinal microbial balance has been defined and
demonstrated only in a few cases. This was noted by Tannock [21], and he
proposed the definition living microbial cells administered as dietary
supplements with the aim of improving health.
According to the accepted definition about probiotic this product is a live
microorganism food supplement which improves the microbial balance of the
host intestinal flora [22-24]. Other definitions in aquaculture show that
probiotic is a live microbial food supplements that are consumed with the aim
of providing health benefit to the host by contributing to an improved
microbial balance within the intestinal microbiota [25,26], are biologically
active components or single or mixed cultures of microorganisms capable of
improving the health of the host [27,28], live microorganisms and/or disease
resistance [29], live microorganisms administered in adequate amounts that
confer a health effect on the host [30]. The components of these definitions
reflect the use microorganism or their products (microbial cells element or
cell free supernatant factors) to tanks and ponds in which animals live, as
biological control or for their capacity of modified the bacterial composition
of aquatic animals intestine, water and sediment, or used with feed as health
supplement and/or biological control.

2. Criteria of probiotic selection in aquaculture
The initial, major, purpose of using probiotics is to maintain or
reestablish a favorable relationship between friendly and pathogenic
microorganisms that constitute the flora of intestinal o skin mucus of aquatic
animals. Since, successful probiotic is expected to have a few specific
properties in order to certify a beneficial effect [31].
Maurilio Lara-Flores & Gabriel Aguirre-Guzmn
4
Generally, probiotic strains have been isolated from indigenous and
exogenous microbiota of aquatic animals. Gram-negative facultative anaerobic
bacteria such as Vibrio and Pseudomonas constitute the predominant
indigenous microbiota of a variety of species of marine animals [32]. In
contrast to saltwater organisms, the indigenous microbiota of freshwater
animals tends to be dominated by members of the genera Aeromonas,
Plesiomonas, representatives of the family Enterobacteriaceae, and obligate
anaerobic bacteria of the genera Bacteroides, Fusubacterium, and Eubacterium
[33]. Lactic acid producing bacteria, which are prevalent in the mammal or
bird gut, are generally sub-dominant in fishes and represented essentially by
the genus Carnobacterium [34].
Ideally, microbial probiotics should have a beneficial effect and not
cause any harm to the host. Therefore, all strains have to be non-pathogenic
and non-toxic in order to avoid undesirable side-effects when administrated
to aquatic animals.
Some research and products talk about the multifactorial action of the
probiotics [30,35] on aquatic animals. However, the multifactorial effect is
not agreed with evidence or is overestimate. Sometimes, this type of publicity
about the potential of those products really affects the perspective of real
probiotic designed for aquaculture industry.
Different modes of action or properties are desire on the potential
probiotic like antagonism to pathogens [34,36], ability of cells to produce
metabolities (like vitamins) and enzymes [31], colonization or adhesion
properties [37], enhance the immune systems [38] and others.

Competitive exclusion
Competitive exclusion as it applies to the gastrointestinal tract is a
phenomenon whereby an established microflora prevents or reduces the
colonization of a competing bacterial challenge for the same location in the
intestine. This microflora begins to form in the gut of aquatic animals during
the hatching process and shortly thereafter from bacteria in the environment.
The aim of probiotic products designed under competitive exclusion is
obtain a stable, agree and controlled microbiota on culture based on
competition for attachment sites on the mucosa, competition for nutrients,
and production of inhibitory substance by the microflora which prevents
replication and/or destroys the challenging bacteria and with this reduce its
colonization [12,39]. Different strategies are displayed in the adhesion of
microorganism to those attachment sites as passive forces, electrostatic
interactions, hydrophobic, steric forces, lipoteichoic acids, adhesins and
specific structures of adhesion [40].
Probiotic in aquaculture
5
The aquaculture industry display some probiotics products designed to
adhesion on mucosal surfaces by a collection of microorganisms based on the
competitive exclusion factors [39,41]. Those factors are important for
adhesion to intestinal epithelial cells or in the activation of immune system,
and help to the health of the organisms, intestinal homeostasis, and digestion
[41,42]. These types of probiotic are extensively study in fish since this
products were initialed development for vertebrates animals, but when are
used in shrimp some problems were observed. For example, Beseres et al.
[43] show that Litopenaeus vannamei, L. stiferus, Farfantepenaeus aztecus
display a gut residence time of consumed feed from 45 to 90 min, which
represent a short time to bacteria adhesion or colonization. Ziaei-Nejad et al.
[24] show a low colonization rates of Bacillus sp. on nauplius, zoea, mysis,
postlarvae (1-14) of Fenneropenaus indicus, and any significantly different in
total bacterial counts between treatments and controls. The positive effects of
this type of probiotics are designed for shrimp culture condition and using the
competitive exclusion properties against microflora of aquatic organisms,
these products show interesting results.

Antagonisms
Control of microbial communities with high diversity has been regarded
as difficult [44]. Such types of microbial communities can disperse the effect
caused by the invasion or addition of certain extrinsic pathogenic organisms.
Bacterial antagonism is a common phenomenon in nature; therefore,
microbial interactions play a major role in the equilibrium between
competing beneficial and potentially pathogenic microorganisms [6]. In
addition, microorganisms can be sources of a variety of bioactive natural
products of basic research and commercial interest that have inhibitory
effects on microbial growth [45].
The antagonism is used in different probiotic products, this is focus to
negative effect to pathogens of aquatic organisms (bacteria principally) with
their positive effect on the health of host [30,45-47]. Vibrio species are part
of the autochthonous flora of marine organisms and caused mortalities in
shrimp larvae and juvenile [48-50]. Arthrobacter sp. (strain XE-7), Bacillus
sp. (strains 11, P64, BT23), B. pumilus, B. sphaericus, B. subtilis,
Lactobacillus bulgaricus (strains NCIM 2056, NCIM 2057), L. acidophilus
(strain NCIM 2285), Nitrosomonas sp., Nitrobacter sp., Pseudomonas sp.
(strain PS-102), Saccharomyces cerevisiae, S. exigus, Phaffia rodozoma,
Streptococcus cremoris (strain NCIM 2285), Streptomyces sp., Tetraselmis
suecica (strain CS-187), Vibrio sp. (strain P62, P63), V. alginolyticus (strain
Ili) had been used as probiotics for their antagonism effect to Vibrio species
as V. harveyi and V. parahaemolyticus (Table 1) [51-61].
Maurilio Lara-Flores & Gabriel Aguirre-Guzmn
6




T
a
b
l
e

1
.

P
r
o
b
i
o
t
i
c

u
s
e
d

i
n

a
q
u
a
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

o
f

s
h
r
i
m
p
.




Probiotic in aquaculture
7




T
a
b
l
e

1
.

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d



Maurilio Lara-Flores & Gabriel Aguirre-Guzmn
8
In the other hand, in fish the probiotics are more extensively used for
prevent and/or combat bacteria disease for example the vertebral column
compression syndrome caused by Flavobacterium psychrophilum where the
use of lactic acid bacteria [62,63] or yeast [64-67] caused a decrease of this
bacteria. Vibrio sp. and Aeromonas sp. have become the most pathogenic
microorganisms in fish aquaculture for control this pathogens pseudomonads
have receive special attention as disease-protecting microorganisms and have
been used as plant biocontrol [68]. In recent years, there has been great
interest in the use of lactic acid bacteria as disinfection treatment [69] and for
control the populations of the native microflora such as Aeromonas and
Vibrio species [70].
In vitro antagonism test is based on the nature phenomenon of
antimicrobial metabolites production of some bacteria strains and is a
frequent way for screening probiotics. For example, antagonism of B. subtilis
(strain BT23) against V. harveyi did confer protection to Penaeus monodon
[56]. Antigenic components of diverse species of Pseudomonas demonstrated
different levels of antagonism against Aeromonas hydrophila [45]. Cell free
extracts of L. acidophilus, S. cremoris, L. bulgaricus (strains 56, 57) show
negative effect on V. alginolyticus growth in agar plate test [57].
The origin of probiotic strain is an important element in the antagonisms
test. The microorganisms present different physiologies or biochemical
activities along their growth develop and based on their environments (fresh,
seawater) and original source. These characteristics affect the probiotic
potential for attachment sites [79] and may create a false impression of the
ability of probiotics to inhibit pathogens in vivo test. The probiotics screening
preferably requires different strategy of selection as antagonism, production
of beneficial compounds, attachment and growth on various environments
[80].

Immunity stimulation
This is relations with the potential characteristic of some probiotic to
stimulate the immune system of host against pathogen agents [81]. Some
studies tried to explain the different actions mechanisms of probiotics
stimulation of immune system in fish, (immune cell, antibodies, acid
phosphatase, lysozyme, antimicrobial peptides, etc). Panigrahi et al. [82,83]
demonstrated the increase of immune parameters as lysozyme action,
phagocyte activity with the use of L. rhamnosus (strain JCM 1136) or their
cell wall components on O. mykiss. Song et al., [84] observed an increase in
acid phosphatase activity in Miichtys miiuy feeding with C. butyricum
indicated a stimulate immune response.
Probiotic in aquaculture
9
In the other hand, the shrimp not display an acquired immune system as
in vertebrates but some studies demonstrated an immune response. Table 1
show that B. pumilus, B. sphaericus, B. subtilis, V. fluvialis (strain PM 17),
Pseudomonas sp. (strain PM 11), S. cerevisiae, S. exigus, P. rodozoma are
used as probiotic with immune response on P. monodon and L. vannamei
[71,76,77]. Rengpipat et al. [71] showed that Bacillus sp. (strain S11) can be
provided disease protection for activating of P. monodon immune defenses.
Balcazar et al. [6] show that administration of a mixture of Bacillus sp. and
Vibrio sp. promotes the resistance of juveniles of L. vannamei against V.
harveyi. Vibrio cells, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), peptidoglycan (PG), 1-3
glucan, fucoidan, laminaria, yeast glucans have been experimentally tested
in small-scale culture and their results suggest that can be used as an
important element in the control of disease for their effect on shrimp or
crustacean immunostimulation [85,86].

Adhesion
Probiotics make up part of the resident microflora and contribute to the
health or well-being of their host [87]. The ability of some strain of adhesion
to mucus, gastrointestinal tract, epithelial cell and other tissues is a common
characteristic used in the probiotic selection because it is associated with
bacteria colonization [26,39,41].
The principal objective of adhesion design is obtaining a high and
significant level of bacteria in the host and prevents them from being flushed
out by the movement of food through the digestive tract. By attaching to the
intestinal mucosa, probiotics can extend their time within the gut thereby
influencing the gastrointestinal microflora of their host [53,76,88,89].
The attachment ability of some bacteria have been tested in vitro and in
vivo and their results suggest that the pathogen was displaced by the potential
probiotic, this is based on the ability of probiotics to attach to the mucus,
where the growth of the pathogen in the digestive tract might be suppressed
by the candidate probiotic presence [39,41,42,80]. This characteristic is
higher associated with the competition for essential nutrients, space, etc. [39].
Different strains of acid lactic bacteria, like Enterococcus faecium and
Lactobacillus sp.; and other groups of bacteria Gram-positive and Gram-
negative as Bacillus sp., Vibrio sp., have been tested and posteriori used as
probiotic for the ability of adhesion [15,16,53,57,80].

Digestive process
Many studies on probiotics in aquaculture have used in vitro models of
specific bacteria as antagonists of pathogens [80,90], measured the survival
Maurilio Lara-Flores & Gabriel Aguirre-Guzmn
10
of probiotics in the fish gut [88,91] or evaluated the beneficial effect of
probiotic on health management, disease resistance and immune response of
fish [11,92]. But other important effect of the use of probiotic that its not
extensively study but demonstrated an important effect is the feed efficiency
and the growth promotion of aquatic animals by probiotic supplements
[69,93].
The probiotic after transit through the stomach, they attach in the
intestine and use a large number of carbohydrates for their growth and
produce a range of relevant digestive enzymes (amylase, protease and lipase)
that increase the digestibility of organic matter and protein, produce a higher
growth, prevent the intestinal disorders and produce or/and stimulate a pre-
digestion of secondary compounds present principal in plant protein sources
[7,93].
In finfish the use of probiotics demonstrated beneficial effects on the
growth performance, feed efficiency and digestibility of organic matter and
protein, when used acid lactic bacteria and yeast [93-98]. In some case this
beneficial effect had attribute to the capacity of the probiotic to stimulate
and/or produce some enzymes on the intestinal tract. For example, Lara et al
[99] observed a high activity of alkaline phosphatase in Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus) when administered probiotics in the diet, the result
show a high activity reflected a possible development of brush border
membranes of enterocytes that can be stimulated by the probiotic and this it
can be a indicator of carbohydrate and lipid absorption and explain the higher
weight gain and the best feed conversion.
In shrimp, some studies on the beneficial effects of probiotics in the
nutritional and digestive process have been reported [24,41,72], where
Bacillus sp. and spores of B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, B. polymyxa, B.
laterosporus, B. circulans have been used in these works. Ziaei-Nead et al.
[24] examined the effects of Bacillus sp. on F. indicus at different shrimp
stages (Nauplius, Zoea, Mysis and postlarvae). In pond treated with probiotic
show a significantly higher activity of amylase, total protease, and lipase. The
increase of Bacillus sp. in L. vannamei diet shows a significantly higher
apparent digestibility of some essential nutrients as phosphorus [72]. Some
research about the application of probiotic strains in shrimp; display and
apparent increase of some enzymes, but the short gut-residence time of feed
on shrimp (45 to 90 min)[43] difficult the evaluation of this parameter.

3. Author opinion
Initially, the efficient of probiotics was related with the strain
multiplications and/or their presence on environment after application, and
Probiotic in aquaculture
11
this attribute was associated with strain colonization on host and some
benefic effect on health. Those are not agree with all probiotics products and
help to obtain contradictories results about their effect on aquatic organisms.
The evolution of probiotic is associated with the better understanding of the
intestinal ecology application of this type of products, properties, and the
specific strain-host relations. Actually, the specific use of probiotic is
researched and associated with the effect on specific host, strain source and
their active doses, effect on the activation immune system by RT-PCR
studies, specific mechanism of adhesion to host and environment with use of
gfp (green fluorescent protein) plasmid, symbiosis, and particularly
environment condition of host and their effect in the probiotic strain.
The direct use of probiotic on water (from fresh to seawater of farms and
laboratories) is a special point of environment research consideration. Those
products (probiotics) are commonly foreign or exogenous strain, and
represent a possible risk of microorganism pollution, especially with the use
of strain with genetic modification, specific adhesions or colonization niche,
antibiotic production, synergistic action. The use and environment effect of
those new probiotics generation its necessary to agree understand before
massive application on aquaculture.
However, a number of probiotic products have been thoroughly
researched, and agree evidenced their efficacy a possible use on aquaculture.
Beneficial bacterial preparations that are species-specific probiotics have
become more widely available to the aquaculture community. These
preparation show specific benefic effect as disease prevention and offer a
natural element to obtain a stable healthy gut environment and immune
system. The establishing of strong disease prevention program, which
includes probiotic and good management practices can be hope to raise
aquatic organisms production.

4. Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the Mexican Council of Science
and Technology or CONACYT [Project FOMIX-CAMPECHE (CAMP-
2004-C02-1 and CAM-2005-C01-041)].

5. References
1. FAO, Fisheries Department. 2004. Series title: State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture. Sofia, Bulgaria.
2. Balcazar, J.L., de Blas, I., Ruiz-Zarzuela, I., Cunningham, D., Vendrell, D., and
Muzquiz, J.L. 2006. Vet. Microbiol. 114, 173.
3. Subasinghe, R. 1997. Fish Health and Quarantine. Review of the State of World
Aquaculture FAI Fisheries Circulars. Shehadeh, Z., Maclean Mr., J. (Ed).
Maurilio Lara-Flores & Gabriel Aguirre-Guzmn
12
4. Fegan, D. 2001. Dealing with Disease: An Industry Perspective.
WB/NACA/WWF/FAO. Thematic Review on Management Strategies for Major
Diseases in Shrimp Aquaculture. Subainghe, R., Arthur, R., Phillips, M. J., and
Reantaso, M. (Ed). 28-30 November 1999. 16.
5. Gaiotto, J.R. 2005. Utilizao de levadura de cana-de-acar (Saccharomyces
cerevisiae) e seus subproductos na alimentao de juvenis de pintado
(Pseudoplatystoma coruscans). Dissertao (Maestrado em Qualidade e
Productividade Animal) Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos.
Universidade de So Paulo. 89.
6. Balcazar, J.L., Vendrell, D., Ruiz-Zarzuela, I., and Muzquiz, J.L. 2004. J. Aquac.
Trop. 19, 239.
7. El-Haroun, E.R., A-S-Goda, A. M., and Kabir-Chowdhury, M .A. 2006. Aquac.
Res. 37, 1473.
8. Rollo, A., Sulpizio, R., Nardi, M., Silvi, S., Orpianesi, C., Caggiano, M., Cresci,
A., and Carnevali, O. 2006. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 32, 167.
9. Gatlin III, D.M., 2002. Nutrition and Fish Health. Fish Nutrition. Halver, J.E.,
and Ard, R.W. (Ed). Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA. 671.
10. Gongora, C.M. 1998. Mecanismos de resistencia bacteriana ante la medicina
actual. Mc Graw-Hill, Barcelona, Spain. 156.
11. Li, P., and Gatlin III, D.M. 2004. Aquaculture. 231, 445.
12. Moriarty, DJ.W. 1998. Aquaculture. 164, 351.
13. Skjermo, J., and Vadstein, O. 1999. Aquaculture. 177, 333.
14. Chang, C.I., and Liu, W.Y. 2002. J. Fish Dis. 25, 311.
15. Irianto, A., and Austin, B. 2002. J. Fish Dis. 25, 633.
16. Irianto, A., and Austin, B., 2002. J. Fish Dis. 25, 333
17. Holmstrm, K., Grslund, Wahlstrm, A., Poungshompoo, S., Bengtsson, B.E.,
and Kautsky, M. 2003. International J. Food Sci. Tech. 38, 255.
18. Lilley, D.M., and Stillwell, R.H. 1965. Sci. 147, 747.
19. Chukeatirote, E. 2002. J Sci. Tec. 25, 275.
20. Fuller, R. 1992. History and development of probiotics. Probiotics: the Scientific
Basis. Fuller, R. (Ed) Champman & Hall. London, England. 1.
21. Tannock, G.W. 1997. Modification of the normal microbiota by diet, stress,
antimicrobial agents, and probiotics. Mackie, R.I., With, B.A., and Isaacson, R.E.
(Ed). Chapman and Hall Microbiology Series, International Thompson
Publishing, New York. 1219.
22. Fuller, R. 1987. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 66, 365.
23. Vine, N.G., Leukes, W.D., and Kaiser, H. 2006. FEMS Microbiol. Review. 30,
404.
24. Ziaei-Nejad, S., Rezaei, M.H., Takami, G.A., Lovett, D.L., Mirvaghefi, A.R., and
Sakouri, M. 2006. Aquaculture. 252, 516.
25. Gram, L., Melchiorsen, J., Spanggaard, B., Huber, I., and Nielsen T.F. 1999.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 969.
26. Crittenden, R., Bird, A.R., Gopal, P., Henriksson, A., Lee, Y.K., and Playne, M.J.
2005. Curr Pharm Des. 11, 37.
Probiotic in aquaculture
13
27. Salminen, S., Ouwehand, A., Benno, Y., and Lee, Y.K. 1999. Trends in Food Sci.
Tech. 10, 107.
28. Ochoa-Solano, J.L., and Olmos-Soto, J. 2006. Food Microbiol. 23, 519.
29. Tacon, A.G.J. 2002. Thematic Review of Feeds and Feed Management Practices
in Shrimp Aquaculture. Report prepared under the World Bank, NACA, WWF
and FAO Consortium Program on Shrimp Farming and the Environment. Work
in Progress for Public Discussion. Published by the Consortium. 69.
30. Gomez, R., Geovanny, D., Balcazar, J.L., and Shen, M.A. 2007. J. Ocean
University of China. 6, 76.
31. Ali, A., 2000. Sveriges Lantbruks Universitet. Ume, Senegal. 18.
32. Onarheim, A.M., Wiik, R., Burghardt, J., and Stackebrandt, E. 1994. Syst. Appl.
Microbiol. 17, 370.
33. Sakata, T. 1990. Microflora in the digestive tract of fish and shellfish. Lesel, R.
(Ed). Elsevier. Amsterdam, Holland. 171.
34. Ringo, E., and Vadstein, O. 1998. J. Appl. Microbiol. 84, 227.
35. Tuohy, K.M., Probert, H.M., Smejkal, C.W., and Gibson, G.R. 2003. Drug
Discov. Today. 8, 692.
36. Gram, L., and Melchiorsen, J. 1996. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 80, 589.
37. Olsson, J.C., Westerdahl, A., Conway, P.L., and Kjelleberg, S. 1992. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 58, 551.
38. Perdigon, G., Alvarez, S., Rachid, M., Agero, G., and Gobbato, N. 1995. J.
Dairy Sci. 78, 1597.
39. Vershuere, L., Rombaut, G., Sorgeloos, P., and Verstraete, W. 2000. Mol. Biol.
Rev. 64, 655.
40. Salyers, A.A., and White, D.D. 2002. Bacterial pathogenesis, a molecular
approach. ASM Press. Washington D. C. USA. 47.
41. Farzanfar, A. 2004. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 48, 149.
42. Aguirre-Guzman. 1992. Uso de probiticos en Acuacultura. Cruz-Surez, L. E.,
Ricque, D., and Mendoza, R. (Ed). Facultad de Ciencias Biolgicas de la
Universidad Autnoma de Nuevo Len. Monterrey, Nuevo Len, Mxico. 332.
43. Beseres, J.J., Lawrence, A.L., and Feller, R.J. 2005. J. Shellfish Res. 24, 301.
44. Maeda, M., Nogami, K., Kanematsu, M., and Hirayama, K. 1997. Hydrobiologia.
358, 385.
45. Das, S., Lyla, P.S., and Khan, S.A. 2006. Isr. J. Aquac. Bamidgeh. 58, 198.
46. Dalmin, G, Kathiresan, K, and Purushothaman, A. 2001. Indian. J. Exp. Biol. 39,
939.
47. Li, J., Tan B., Mai, K., Ai, Q., Zhang, W., Xu, W., Liufu, Z., and Ma, H. 2005.
Aquaculture. 253, 140.
48. Vandenberghe, J., Li, Y., Verdonck, L., Li, J., and Sorgeloos, P. 1998.
Aquaculture. 169, 121.
49. Aguirre-Guzman, G., and Ascencio-Valle, F. 2000. Infectious disease in shrimp
species with aquaculture potential. Pandalai S.G. (Ed) 4. pp 333. Research
Signpost. T.C. 36/248 (2), Trivandrum 8, India.
50. Aguirre-Guzman, G., Vzquez-Juarez, R., and Ascencio-Valle, F. 2001. J.
Invertebr. Pathol. 78, 215.
Maurilio Lara-Flores & Gabriel Aguirre-Guzmn
14
51. Austin B., and Day J.G. 1990. Aquaculture. 90, 389.
52. Rengpipat, S., Phianphak, W., Piyatiratitivorakul, S., and Menasveta, P. 1998.
Aquaculture. 167, 301.
53. Rengpipat, S., Tunyanun, A., Fast, A.W., Piyatiratitivorakul, S., and Menasveta,
P. 2003. Dis. Aquatic Org. 55, 169.
54. Vandenberghe, J., Verdonck, L., Robles-Arozarena, R., Rivera, G., Bolland, A.,
Balladares, M., Gomez-Gil, B., Calderon, J., Sorgeloos, P., and Swings, J. 1999.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 2592.
55. Meunpol, O., Lopinyosiri, K., and Menasveta, P. 2003. Aquaculture. 220, 437.
56. Vaseeharan, B., and Ramasam, P. 2003. Lett. Appl. Microbiol., 36, 83.
57. Ajitha, S., Sridhar, M., Sridhar, N., Singh, I.S.B., and Varghese, V. 2004. Asian
Fish. Sci. 17, 71.
58. Gullian, M., Thompson, F., and Rodriguez, J., 2004. Aquaculture. 233, 1.
59. Regunathan, C., and Wesley, S.G. 2004. Asian Fish. Sci. 17, 147.
60. Purivirojkul, W., Maketon, M., and Areechon, N. 2005. The Kasetsart J., Natl.
Sci. 39, 262.

61. Vijayan, K.K., Singh, I.S.B., Jayaprakash, N.S., Alavandi, S.V., Pai, S.S.,
Preetha, R., Rajan, J.J.S., and Santiago, T.C. 2006. Aquaculture. 251, 192.
62. Nikoskelainen, S., Ouwehand, A., Salminen, S., and Bylund, G. 2001.
Aquaculture. 198, 229.
63. Villamil, L., Figueras, A., Planas, M., and Novoa, B. 2003. Aquaculture. 219, 43.
64. Siwicki, A.K., Anderson, D.P., and Rumsey, G.L. 1994. Vet. Immunol.
Immunopathol. 41, 125.
65. Duncan, P.L., and Klesius, P.H. 1996. J. Aquat. Anim. Health. 8, 241.
66. Ortuo, J., Cuesta, A., Rodrguez A., Esteban, M.A., and Meseguer, J. 2002. Vet.
Immunol. Immunopathol. 85, 41.
67. Esteban, M.A., Rodriguez, A., and Mesenguer, J. 2004. Fish Shellfish Immunol.
16, 447.
68. Spanggaard, B., Huber, I., Nielsen, J., Sick, E.B., Pipper, C.B., Martinussen, T.,
Slierendrecht, W.J., and Gram, L. 2001. Environ. Microbiol. 3, 755.
69. Gatesoupe, F.J. 2002. Aquaculture. 212, 347.
70. Vazquez, J.A., Gonzalez, M.P., and Murado, M.A. 2005. Aquaculture. 245, 149.
71. Rengpipat, S., Rukpratanporn, S., Piyatiratitivorakul, S., and Menasaveta, P.
2000. Aquaculture. 191, 271.
72. Lin, H.Z., Guo, Z., Yang, Y., Zheng, W., and Li, Z.J. 2004. Aquac. Res. 35,
1441.
73. Matias, H.B., Yusoff, F.M., Shariff, M., and Azhar, O. 2002. Asian Fish. Sci. 15,
239.
74. Wang, Y.B., Xu, Z. R., and Xia, M.S. 2005. Fish. Sci. 71, 1036.
75. Garriques, D., and Arrevalo, G. 1995. 53. Broedy, C.L., and Hopkins, J.S. (Eds).
Proceedings of the special seccion on shrimp farming. Aquaculture 95. World
Aquaculture Society. Baton Rouge, Luisiana, USA.
76. Alavandi S.V., Vijayan K.K., Santiago T.C., Poornima M., Jithendran K.P., Ali
S.A., and Rajan J.J.S. 2004. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 17, 115.
Probiotic in aquaculture
15
77. Scholz, U., Diaz, G.G., Ricque, D., Suarez, L.E.C., Albores, F.V., and Latchford,
J. 1999. Aquaculture. 176, 271.
78. Kim, C.J., Yoon, S.K., Kim, H.K., Park, Y.H., and Oh, H.M. 2006. J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 16, 1248.
79. Vanbelle, M., Teller, E., and Focant, M. 1990. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 40, 543.
80. Vine, N.G., Leukes, W.D., Kaiser, H., Daya, S., Baxter, J., and Hecht, T. 2004. J.
Fish Dis. 27, 319.
81. Song, Y.L., and Huang, C.C. 2000. Aplications of immunostimulant to prevent
shrimp diseases. 173. Fingerman, M., and Negabhusanam, R. (Ed). Science
Publishers Inc. Playmouth, UK.
82. Panigrahi, A., Kiron, V., Kobayashi, T., Puangkaew, J., Satoh, S., and Sugita, H.
2004. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 102, 379.
83. Panigrahi, A., Kiron, V., Puangkaew, J., Kobayshi, T., Satoh, S., and Sugita, H.
2005. Aquaculture. 243, 241.
84. Song, Z., Wu, T., Cai, L., Zhang, L., and Zheng, X. 2006. J. Zhejiang University
Sci. B. 7, 59.
85. Moriarty, D.J.W. 1999. Disease control in shrimp aquaculture with probiotics
bacteria. Bell C.R., Brylinsky, M., and Johnson-Green, P. (Ed) 8
th
Atlantic
Canada Society for Microbial Ecology, Halifax, Canada.
86. Vici, V. Singh, B., and Bhat S.G. 2000. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 10, 559.
87. Gatesoupe, F.J. 1999. Aquaculture. 180, 147.
88. Andlid, T., Vazquez, R., and Gustafsson, L. 1998. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 7,
115.
89. Ouwehand, A. C., Tolkko, S., Kulmala, J., Salimine, S., and Salmine, E. 2000.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 31, 82.
90. Vine, N.G., Leukes, W.D., and Kaiser, H. 2003. Microbiol. Lett. 231, 145.
91. Andlid, T., Vzquez-Jurez, R. and Gustafsson, C. 1995b. Microb. Ecol. 30, 65.
92. Shelby, R.A., Lim, C.E., Aksoy, M., and Delaney, M.A. 2006. J. Appl. Aquac.
18, 23.
93. Lara-Flores, M., Olvera-Novoa, M.A., Guzmn-Mndez, B.E., and Lpez-
Madrid, W. 2003. Aquaculture. 216, 193.
94. Vzquez-Jurez, R., Ascencio, F., Andlid, T., Gustafasson, L. and Wadstrom, T.
1993. Can. J. Microbiol. 39, 1135.
95. Noh, S.H., Han, K., Won, T.H., and Choi, Y.J. 1994. Korean J. Anim. Sci. 36,
380.
96. Bogut, I., Milakovic, Z., Bukvic, Z., Brkic, S., and Zimmer, R. 1998. Czech J.
Anim. Sci. 43, 231.
97. Ringo, E., and Gatesoupe, F.J. 1998. Aquaculture. 160, 177.
98. De Schrijver, R., and Ollevier, F., 2000. Aquaculture. 186, 107.
99. Lara, M., Guzman, B.E., Lpez, W., and Olvera, M. 2000. Influencia sobre la
actividad enzimtica intestinal por la inclusin de probiticos en dietas para
tilapia niltica (Oreochromis niloticus) bajo condiciones de alta densidad. Cruz-
Surez, L.E., Ricque-Marie, D., Tapia-Salazar, M., Olvera-Novoa, M.A., and
Civera-Cerecedo, R. (Ed). V Simposium Internacional de Nutricin Acucola. 19-
22 Noviembre, 2000. Mrida, Yucatn, Mxico. 43.

Você também pode gostar