EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 35 (2022) Aquat. Living Resour., 35 (2022) 10 Full HTML
Open Access
Review
Issue
Aquat. Living Resour.
Volume 35, 2022
Article Number 10
Number of page(s) 17
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2022011
Published online 17 August 2022

© A. Chizhayeva et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2022

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1 Introduction

It is expected that in the next few years, as a result of population growth, the development of low-middle-income countries and changing food preferences, the consumption of fish and seafood will increase by almost one third (Thilsted et al., 2016; FAO, 2020). In meeting the demand for safe fish products, global aquaculture will play an increasingly important role among global fish production. Aquaculture is the breeding and cultivation of aquatic organisms (fish, crustaceans, shellfish, and algae) in natural and artificial reservoirs, as well as on specially created marine plantations. In total, about 600 species of aquatic animals are grown in the world by aquaculture, among which the production of species such as shrimp, bivalve shellfish, salmon, tilapia, carp and catfish is currently expanding (FAO, 2020). Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing food sectors in the world; its production has been steadily growing by 7.5% each year since 1970. In 2018, this sector of fish-breeding was a significant source of fish eaten − 52% (FAO, 2020). Aquaculture production expected to reach 109 million tons by 2030, with more than 90% of that growth coming from low-middle-income countries (World Bank, 2013). The dominance of aquaculture over fisheries is partly due to better control of production processes, better integration into production and supply chains, etc.

However, the FAO predicts that this sector will face enormous environmental challenges in achieving such growth, requiring a new strategy for sustainable aquaculture development (FAO, 2020). The global trend in aquaculture is the emergence of new pathogens that cause new and unknown diseases, which will spread rapidly, including across national borders, and cause large production losses about every three to five years (FAO, 2019). The rapid expansion of intensive aquaculture worldwide has already led to an increase in the prevalence of transboundary viral, bacterial, parasitic and fungal infections in cultured aquatic organisms, which has affected the sustainability of aquaculture production in many countries (Amal and Saad, 2011; Stentiford et al., 2017). The diseases of aquatic animals in the United States cause economic losses of up to $6 billion per year and are now one of the main limiting factors for the expansion of the aquaculture industry (Stentiford et al., 2012; World Bank, 2013).

In this regard, there was a need to change the paradigm in working with the biosafety risks of aquaculture. The COFI Aquaculture Subcommittee and the FAO Fisheries Committee at the 10th session in Trondheim (Norway), in August 2019, reviewed and approved a global progressive management program to improve aquaculture biosafety. The new strategy includes innovative technical developments related to feed, genetic selection, bioprotection and disease control, digital innovation, etc. Importantly, the first item of this program is “strengthening the prevention of diseases in aquaculture through responsible fish farming (including reduced antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture and the use of suitable alternatives to antimicrobials) and the use of other scientifically sound technology-proven measures” (FAO, 2020).

In industrial fish farming, aimed at achieving maximum fish growth in a minimum period, there are many reasons for the occurrence of acute diseases that turn into chronic forms, for example overcrowding, high-nutrient feeds, abuse of disinfectants and antibiotics, etc. (Fig. 1). They cause significant economic damage to fish-growing enterprises, resulting from a decrease in productivity, a slowdown in growth, spoilage of commercial species and fish death.

In industrial fish farming, high planting densities and highly nutritious feeds can lead to an increase in the level of organic pollution and the number of opportunistic bacteria in the aquatic environment of fish farms, as well as in the fish organs and tissues (Borisova et al., 2007). With a decrease in the general resistance of the fish body under the influence of various factors, opportunistic autochthonous microorganisms begin to show pathogenic actions and generate acute diseases that turn into chronic forms, subsequently leading to the fish death (Sergaliev et al., 2019).

Additional causes of fish diseases in aquaculture are violations of veterinary, sanitary and zoohygienic rules for the fish keeping and feeding, together with the lack of quarantine measures for newly imported fish individuals for the purpose of reproduction (Rico et al., 2013).

Excessive unbalance of feed supplements and significant environmental deterioration can disrupt the fish microbiota in aquaculture and cause diseases. When feeding with granulated and extruded, i.e. thermally treated, feeds, aquatic organisms in closed water reservoirs are completely devoid of contact with natural donors of normal microorganisms. Feed, air, and water can be additional sources of toxic substances and pesticides, which disrupt the mucous membrane of various cavities of fish/shellfish and directly affect the microbiota (Ashraf, 2005; Squadrone et al., 2013).

Under aquaculture conditions, many fish diseases also occur due to the presence of mycotoxigenic fungi and their toxins in the feed. Globally, 30–100% of feed samples are сontaminated with them (Vila-Donat et al., 2018; Simonova et al., 2020). Various mycotoxins are often found together in contaminated cereals (barley, wheat, corn, and small cereals), corn silage, feed raw materials (meal, cake, etc.), animal and fish feed (Streit et al., 2013; Pinotti et al., 2016; Stanciu, 2017; Li et al., 2018). The studies show that co-contaminated samples can have adverse effects on animal health even at concentrations of toxins within limits (defined by FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regulations). This is due to the additive, antagonistic or synergistic effects of the simultaneous presence of several species of mycotoxins in the feed. At the same time, fish are very sensitive to adverse effects of mycotoxins (Anater et al., 2016). For a long time, vaccines and chemicals, including antibiotics, have been commonly used to prevent, treat or control infectious diseases in cultured fish (Cabello, 2006; Rico et al., 2013; Assefa and Abunna, 2018). However, vaccines cannot be used as an universal measure to combat diseases in the field of aquaculture due to the fact that their quantity in a number of countries is limited and their protective effect is manifested only in certain bacterial and viral diseases (Amabile-Cuevas et al., 1995; FAO, 2006). The use of antibiotic agents in aquaculture can cause several serious problems (Tanwar et al., 2014; Cabello et al., 2016; Carlson et al., 2017; Okocha et al., 2018; Gasser et al., 2019), presented in Figure 2 and showing the inconsistency of antibiotics as active agents in the body’s fight against emerging progressive diseases.

In this regard, it is necessary to use new preparations to maintain and restore the normal physiological state of fish, which will exert the greatest antimicrobial and fungicidal effect, do not cause resistance of the infectious agent and not have a negative effect on normal fish microbiota.

thumbnail Fig. 1

Main factors contributing to fish disease in aquaculture.
thumbnail Fig. 2

Problems caused by antibiotics in aquaculture.

2 Efficacy of probiotics in aquaculture

Probiotics can serve as an alternative antimicrobial agent to reduce dependence on antibiotics, vaccines and other drugs, as well as to improve the fish health in aquaculture and to obtain safe fish products of high quality, as confirmed by various studies (Wang et al., 2008; Dawood and Koshio, 2016; Banerjee and Ray, 2017; Gobi et al., 2018; Kuebutornye et al., 2019; Soltani et al., 2019; Ringø et al., 2020; Arsène et al., 2021). Probiotics are defined as living non-pathogenic microorganisms that benefit the host when administered in adequate quantities (Steenbergen et al., 2015; Marco et al., 2021). The history of their use in aquaculture began in the mid-1980s (Gatesoupe, 1999), and since then the interest in them in this sector of fish farming has been growing rapidly. The use of probiotics as protective agents prevents the spread of diseases and improves the composition of microbiota (Hoseinifar et al., 2018; Nandi et al., 2018; Doan et al., 2021). Probiotics positively affect the digestion processes, increase feed conversion efficiency and productivity (Merrifieldd et al., 2010; Doan et al., 2018). Their use makes it possible to improve the condition of the water in the reservoir. In this case, probiotics act in water − direct suppression of the pathogen in culture water (biocontrol) or probiotic biofilter for microbiological maturation of water and displacement of opportunistic bacteria (Al-Dohail et al., 2009; Verschuere et al., 2000). Probiotics enhance innate immunity and resistance to diseases (Grayfer et al., 2018; Feng J et al., 2019; Di et al., 2019; Giri et al., 2021), reduce stress resulting from a sharp change in the composition of the diet, violations of feeding regimes, technological stress and other causes (Taoka et al 2008; Soltani et al., 2017; Dawood et al., 2017).

Fundamental studies of the interaction of probiotics with intestinal microbiota and the body of an aquatic animal have shown that these processes are much more complicated than simply “squeezing out” pathogenic bacteria. Probiotic strains introduced with feed or drugs interact with the host microbiome (Xia Y et al., 2018), produce metabolites that increase the activity of the host’s immune, hormonal and digestive systems (Zhang et al., 2017; Suzer et al., 2008). It has been established that the use of probiotics can have an anti-infectious and immune modulatory effect on the body, increase barrier functions (physiological mechanisms that protect the body from environmental effects, prevent the penetration of bacteria, viruses and harmful substances into it), stimulate motility and excretory functions of the intestine (Son et al., 2009; Talpur et al., 2013; Dawood et al., 2016a, 2017c; Giri et al., 2018). Probiotic together with intestinal microbiota performs the non-specific protection of the intestine against pathogenic bacteria and viruses having genetically determined invasion properties by creating an antagonistic barrier, the so-called colonization resistance of the intestine. By coming into close contact with the intestinal mucosa and covering the surface with a thick layer, it mechanically protects it from the introduction of pathogenic microorganisms.

The antibacterial activity of probiotics is due to the ability to produce alcohols, hydrogen peroxide, lactic, acetic and other organic acids, to synthesize lysozyme and bacteriocins of a wide spectrum of action (lactococcin, enterocin, sublancin, aureocin, gassericin, closticin, thuricin, subtilosin, etc.) (Ingolf et al., 2013). They can inhibit the growth of other species also through higher biological potential, rapid reproduction and reaching M concentration, shorter lag-phase, changing pH or redox potential of the medium (Tarakanov, 2000; Bondarenko et al., 2003).

Probiotics, unlike antibiotics, do not adversely affect microbiota and not cause resistance of the opportunistic microorganisms in the gastrointestinal tract of animals, so they are widely used for the prevention and treatment of dysbacteriosis. At the same time, these biologics are characterized by a pronounced clinical effect in the treatment of acute intestinal infections. They reduce intestinal wall permeability disorders caused by bacterial and viral infection, increase the survival of intestinal crypts, reduce apoptosis of the intestinal epithelium, and help maintain the integrity of the cytoskeleton (Sorroza et al., 2013). In addition, probiotics are able to protect against infection due to their lectin-like protein, which exhibits a pronounced inhibitory activity against the production of biofilms by various pathogenic microorganisms (Elayaraja et al., 2014). Biological preparations increase the level of IgA, stimulate the local release of interferon, which facilitates the transport of antigens to the underlying lymphoid cells of the intestinal wall and promotes phagocytosis. Also, they contribute to the suppression of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β) and reduce the level of IgE (Elayaraja et al., 2014; Araújo et al., 2016). Probiotic strains are able to inactivate pathogen toxins by enzymatic cleavage and inhibit their binding to receptors, which leads to a decrease in the enterotoxic and cytotoxic effects of pathogens (Baños et al., 2019). The metabolites of probiotic strains do not accumulate in organs and tissues, which makes it possible to obtain environmentally friendly livestock products. Probiotics are safe for the environment and maintenance personnel (Chizhayeva et al., 2017).

Probiotics due to fermentation activity (amylolytic, proteolytic, cellulolytic, etc.), are able to synthesize many biologically active substances: organic acids, alcohols, lipids, vitamins (especially group B), and compounds of the tetrapyrrol structure. Being absorbed into the bloodstream, many of them actively participate in energy and vitamin exchanges, playing an important role in the life support of the host organism (Bondarenko et al., 2003). Organic acids enhance the peristalsis and secretion of the intestine, thereby promoting digestion of the feed and increasing the resorption of calcium and iron (Khanongnuch et al., 2018). Polyphosphates of bacteria take part in the transfer of sugars to the cell, performing the function of hexokinases (Nozdrin et al., 2005). At the same time, probiotics are able to synthesize metabolites with antitoxic effects, which reduce the accumulation of heavy metals in water and fish tissues, provide direct protection against oxidative stress caused by metals (Giri et al., 2018). For example, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG and Limosilactobacillus reuteri P16 produce exopolysaccharides containing a large number of negatively charged groups (carboxylic, hydroxyl and/or phosphate) that can bind cationic heavy metals such as cadmium and Pb (Halttunen et al., 2007; Giri et al., 2019). In addition, various lactobacilli excrete S-layer proteins, which can also enhance their ability to bind Pb (Monachese et al., 2012). Thus, probiotics bind heavy metals to the surface of their cells and play an important role in the process of natural detoxification and excretion of heavy metals.

Microorganisms commonly used in aquaculture as probiotics include bacteria, yeast and algae (Balcazar et al., 2006). The effectiveness of a probiotic largely depends on the correct selection of candidate strain, which forms its basis (Gueimonde et al., 2013). A successful probiotic candidate for aquaculture must have several important criteria presented in Figure 3 to work well in a variety of aquatic environments − fresh and marine, and in aquatic organisms. Probiotics should be highly tolerant to osmotic pressure, to low and high pH values, and to high bile concentrations; able to inhibit opportunistic microorganisms (Giri et al., 2019).

For the use of probiotic in fish farming, there are no particularly stringent requirements for the source of release of probiotic microorganism. Preferably, the cultures are of an autochthonous nature, but may have a different origin while meeting all the criteria included in Figure 3. Most probiotics are used by feeding, injecting, encapsulating or immersing in water (Chandrakala and Soundharanayaki, 2017; Aydın and Çek-Yalnız, 2019). Effective probiotics for aquaculture used as a water additive or feed should be representative of microbial communities of fish mucosa, or should have high adhesion or colonization activity.

The skin, gills and intestine are important elements of the fish mucosa and represent a large surface of the first barrier for infections; in addition, their microbiota is responsible for host immunity (Benhamed et al., 2014). Using tilapia as an example, a group of researchers led by Miao Wang (Wang et al., 2020) showed, that using probiotics as additives to water, it is possible to improve the abundance of beneficial host microbiota and the activity of immune enzymes in the immune tissues of the fish mucosa.

The intestinal microbiota should be considered as an independent “organ” that forms during the development of the organism and covers the intestinal wall in the form of a biofilm (Smirnova et al., 2010). The collective immunity of the intestinal biofilm is a strong system that prevents the introduction of foreign strains and does not allow for a full correction of dysbiosis with the help of those preparations of live probiotic cultures that, due to biological incompatibility, cannot enter the biofilm as a component and replenish the pool of transient bacteria. And yet, in this case, the use of probiotic preparations may be justified. First, when using probiotic microorganisms that are not yet dominant in the normal intestinal microbiota of larvae or growing fish, the effectiveness of their use is explained by the phenomenon of competitive exclusion. Probiotics compete for mucosal attachment sites and for nutrients due to their ability to adhesion or colonization ability (Wang et al., 2008; Hai, 2015). Secondly, various symbionts and parasites are present in the intestinal contents − transient bacteria, protozoa and helminths, whose role in the normal functioning of an aquatic animals organism cannot be underestimated (Merrifield et al., 2015). Probiotic strains introduced into the body of a hydrobiont with feed or water, even being transient, secrete biologically active metabolites, signaling substances, antibiotics and bacteriocins, interact with the microbiota, protozoa and parasites and have a positive effect on the functioning of various physiological systems of the host organism. For transient probiotic bacteria, the most important properties are stability, high enzymatic activity, and the ability to multiply quickly (Chizhayeva et al., 2017).

In addition, probiotics used as a water supplement can improve water quality by affecting the microbial communities of the environment, inhibiting the growth of opportunistic microorganisms, and reducing metabolic waste in the water system (Talpur et al., 2013; Giri et al., 2018). Zhai and other scientists found that lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria can bind and remove heavy metals in vitro and in vitro from water and the environment (Zhai et al., 2017; Bhakta et al., 2012). When ingested with water or feed, probiotics effectively reduce mortality and the accumulation of heavy metals in tissues; improve fish growth rates. They attenuate oxidative stress caused by heavy metal exposure, reverse changes in hematobiochemical parameters, improve innate immunity and restore enzymatic activity of the fish intestinal microbiota (Giri et al., 2018). However, in such cases, it is necessary to regularly administer the probiotic to improve the composition of the microbial community in the culture water and subsequent colonization of the fish mucosa and intestines (Wang et al., 2008).

When using probiotic as a tool to counteract fish diseases in the aquaculture sector, preliminary research work on the frequency and duration of probiotics administration (e.g. daily, daily interval, weekly or weekly interval) is critical to optimize the level of immune responses and disease resistance of aquatic animals against targeted pathogens. An equally important criterion for the effective use of probiotics as an alternative to traditional antibiotics is knowledge of the LD50/LC50 of the target pathogen in the target fish/shellfish, which allows determining the effective dose of the probiotic (Doan et al., 2021). LD50/LC50 is an animal test to determine the level of toxic exposure to substances (in our case, a pathogen). LD50 is an abbreviation used for a dose that kills 50% of the test population (Lethal Dose 50%), and LC50 is an abbreviation used for the concentration of exposure to a toxic substance fatal to half of the tested animals (Lethal Concentration 50%).

Probiotics are often mono-component in composition, i.e. contain one strain of microorganisms. However, studies show that the use of poly-component probiotics (containing several strains of the same or different species, or genus, or family) may be more effective (Chapman et al., 2011; Xia et al., 2018; Beck et al., 2015). In poly-component or combined probiotics, different microorganisms complement or potentiate each other by enzymatic properties, antagonistic activity, production of biologically active substances, mechanism of action or other properties.

thumbnail Fig. 3

Selection criteria for successful probiotic candidate.

3 Advantages of probiotic lactic acid bacteria in aquaculture

A large number of scientific studies presented in Table 1 confirmed that lactic acid bacteria (LAB), which have a number of valuable properties required for probiotic candidates, can be very promising microorganisms for their use in aquaculture. LAB − Gram-positive, gomo- and hetero-fermentative, optionally anaerobic and non-sporeforming microorganisms related to genera Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Lactococcus, Vagococcus, Leuconostoc, Oenococcus, Weissella, Carnobacterium and Tetragenococcus (Rine et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2020). LAB are representatives of both human (Yudin et al., 2018) and fish/mollusk microbiota (Ringø et al., 2018; Sergaliev et al., 2019) and have antagonistic activity against opportunistic bacteria, viruses and fungi causing fish and shellfish diseases (Doan et al., 2021; Ringø, 2020).

LAB is safe microorganisms for both animals and humans. They have a GRAS status (generally recognized as safe) declared by the FDA (USA) as well as the status − QPS (qualified presumption of safety) assigned to them by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards et al., 2021). However, some researchers note that some bacteria of this large group (Lactococcus lactis, Lc. garvieae, Enterococcus sp., Lacticaseibacillus casei and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus) may be the causes of bacterial infections (Vesterlund et al., 2007; Protonotariou et al., 2010; Brazaca and Bicalho, 2016). Therefore, it is necessary not to neglect the careful assessment of their safety (pathogenicity, virulence, invasive properties, etc.) before introducing strains of LAB into feed probiotics, water supplements or probiotics for fish disease control in aquaculture, because the last instance of this food chain is a human (Nikoskelainen et al., 2003; Ghosh et al., 2017; Le and Yang, 2018; Ringø et al., 2020).

LAB may serve as biological food preservatives due to the antimicrobial activity of their metabolites, such as organic acids (mainly lactic acid and acetic acid), biocides − carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), lysozyme, phenyl-lactic acid, fatty acids, antibiotics (reuterocyclin) or bacteriocins (Stoyanova et al., 2012; Kaktcham et al., 2018; Gong et al., 2019; Garcés et al., 2020).

The main product of LAB is lactic acid. Hetero-fermentative lactic acid bacteria produce equimolar amounts of lactic acid, acetic acid/ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2) during fermentation. The antimicrobial activity of lactic acid at low concentrations is not high, especially at neutral pH. Acetic acid is a stronger inhibitor than lactic acid for bacteria, mold and yeast (Reis et al., 2012). Un-dissociated forms of acids diffuse through the wall of the microbial cell due to their hydrophobic nature and then dissociate inside the pathogen cell. From the mixture of acids produced by LAB, lactic acid mainly reduces intracellular pH and inhibits various metabolic functions, while acetic acid also interferes with cell membrane potential maintenance, inhibits active transport, and damages the cell membrane of pathogens (Ross et al., 2002; Aitzhanova et al., 2021).

Some of the LAB (Lactobacillus johnsonii NCC 533, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus etc.) produce hydrogen peroxide H2O2 in the presence of oxygen under the action of flavoprotein-containing oxidases, superoxide dismutase and NADH-oxidase (Marty-Teysset et al., 2000; Pridmore et al., 2008). The bactericidal effect of H2O2 is explained by its strong oxidative effect on the bacterial cell. Some H2O2-forming reactions absorb oxygen, thereby creating an anaerobic environment that is not suitable for certain organisms. It is known that CO2 enrichment in relatively low concentrations enhances the toxic effect of H2O2 on opportunistic microorganisms (Martirosyan et al., 2012).

LAB are known to produce substances with antimicrobial activity such as reuterine, bacteriocins, antifungal peptides, etc. (Kaktcham et al., 2018). Among them, bacteriocins, ribosomally synthesized extracellular peptides or protein molecules with bacteriocidal or bacteriostatic mechanism of action in relation to different types of microorganisms occupy a special place (Pokhilenko and Perelygin, 2011). Initially, bacteriocins produced by different strains were thought to have activity only against other closely related LAB species, but further studies showed their antibacterial activity against more phylogenetically distant Gram-positive and sometimes against Gram-negative bacteria (Pokhilenko and Perelygin, 2011). The spectrum of inhibition by antimicrobial compounds of LAB includes microorganisms that cause fish and shellfish diseases: Aeromonas salmonicida, A. hydrophila, Edwardsiella tarda, Pasteurella piscicida, Vibrio anguillarm, V. salmonicida, V. harveyi, V. parahaemolyticus and Yersinia ruckeri, Lactococcus garvieae, Streptococcus iniae, pathogenic Esherichia coli, fungi Candida and mold fungi (Balcazar et al., 2007a; Chomwong et al., 2018; Gong et al., 2019; Ringø et al., 2020).

Many different types of bacteriocins or bacteriocin-like substances of LAB have now been studied and characterized. The most famous are nisin, lactacin B, lactocin 27, plantaricin A, plantacin B and helveticin, leucocin, sacacin, pediocin PAl/AcH, enterocins AS-48, A, etc. (Pokhilenko and Perelygin, 2011; Backialakshmi et al., 2015; Nouri et al., 2015; Eid et al., 2016; Kaktcham et al., 2018). They can affect bacteria by inhibiting cell wall synthesis, increasing cell permeability of target cell membranes, or inhibiting RNase or DNase activities (Galvez et al., 2007). Enterocin AS-48 in combination with NaCl and low temperature is effective against Staphylococcus aureus (Ananou et al., 2004). Synergistic action of lactic acid bacteria in combination with organic acid is effective against E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella typhimurium (Seo et al., 2013). Bacteriocins (nisin, pediocin and enterocin) in combination with other factors (low and high temperature, hydrostatic pressure, pulse electric fields and salts) inhibited pathogenic bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus carnosus, Bacillus subtilis, Listeria innocua and Arcobacter butzleri (Ananou et al., 2007). Furthermore, Settanni and Corsetti showed the possibility of using bacteriocin-like compounds produced by Enterococcus faecium and Lactococcus lactis for the storage of plant food due to their low minimum inhibitory concentration against Listeria spp. and Staphylococcus aureus (Settanni and Corsetti, 2008). The antibiotic reuterocyclin from Limosilactobacillus reuteri in combination with bacteriocins, such as enterocin AS-48, nisin or lacticin 481 has a strong synergistic effect against growth of Listeria monocytogenes. There is also a higher antibacterial activity of nisin in combination with reuterin (secondary metabolite) against S. aureus (Arques et al., 2008). Bacteriocins of lactic acid bacteria are non-toxic to animals and humans, do not change nutritional properties of food products, are effective at low concentration and do not lose activity during cooling or heating (Akbar et al., 2016).

Antifungal peptides of LAB show potential antifungal properties against mycotoxigenic fungi of the genera Aspergillus, Fusarium, Penicillium and Rhizopus, as well as inhibition of mycotoxin synthesis and detoxification of mycotoxins in plant raw materials from which fish feed is produced, which is important for the fish sector (Khalil et al., 2013; Muhialdin et al., 2020b). Gourama and Bullerman (Gourama and Bullerman, 1995; Gourama, 1997) reported antifungal and antiaflatoxin properties of lactic acid and other active metabolites of LAB. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum releases phenyl lactic and 4-hydroxylphenyl lactic acids that have antifungal activity (Lavermicocca et al., 2000). Similarly, Dalie and others (Dalie et al., 2010) observed growth inhibition of Fusarium proliferatum and F. verticillioides by Pediococcus pentosaceus L006 isolated from maize leaf. LAB strains have the ability to detoxify mycotoxins by binding them to polysaccharides and proteins, components of the cell wall (Wang et al., 2015). Some scientists have proven the ability of L. acidophilus VM 20 and Bifidobacterium animalis VM 12 to detoxify aflatoxin B1, patulin and ochratoxin A in aqueous solution (Peltonen et al., 2001; Fuchs et al., 2008). The antifungal activity of Pediococcus acidilactici and Pediococcus pentosaceus, as well as their ability to inhibit the formation of zeralenone (Mandala et al., 2007; Muthulakshmi et al., 2016), has been determined. Nurkhayati et al. proved the inhibitory effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum FNCC 226 against Saprolegnia parasitica on catfish Pangasius hypophthalamus Sauvage (Nurkhayati et al., 2012).

LAB in numerous in vitro and in vivo studies show potential antiviral activity against respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses such as rotaviruses, noroviruses, enteroviruses, and salmonid viruses (Nácher-Vázquez et al., 2015; Nishihira et al., 2018; Seo et al., 2020; Muhialdin et al., 2021). Researches by Harikrishnan et al., have shown that the use of dietary probiotic Lactobacillus sp. generated resistance to lymphocytic disease virus (LCDV) in Paralichthys olivaceus (Harikrishnan et al., 2010). Son V.M. and his team of researchers confirmed that dietary administration of the probiotic Lactiplantibacillus plantarum enhanced the innate immune responses and resistance of the grouper Epinephelus coioides against iridovirus (Son et al., 2009). Many researchers attribute the mechanism of antiviral activity of LAB to direct contact with the virus, suppression of viral replication regulation by inducing expression of antiviral genes, or stimulation of host immune system functions (Nakayama et al., 2014; Arena et al., 2018). In Y. Jung team studies it has been shown that administration of high doses of Lacticaseibacillus casei promoted rapid induction of antibodies IgG1 and IgG2a, innate immune cells and cytokines (Jung et al., 2017).

Lactobacteria support humoral and cellular immunity, stimulate the release of lysozyme, activate phagocytosis, which increases the overall level of body protection against infections (Sandes et al., 2015; Mojgani et al., 2020). In addition, they have the ability to absorb substances that cause allergic reactions and hypersensitivity to food components. They are involved in the formation of the phenomenon of “oral tolerance” to food antigens, that is, they help the body with food allergies.

The antioxidant activity of LAB also deserves special attention in the aspect of their use in aquaculture. Castex et al., in their studies have shown the effect of dietary probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici on increasing antioxidant protection and reduced levels of oxidative stress of shrimp Litopenaeus stylirostris (Castex et al., 2009). W. A. Abd El-Ghany in its review showed that intracellular compounds of LAB are able to inhibit lipid peroxidation and show resistance to hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radicals, as well as to glutathione peroxidase activity. The mechanism of antioxidant effects in his opinion is associated with an increase in the content of uronic acid, as well as the chelating ability of the iron ion, which is involved in the formation of free radicals, and production of antioxidant enzymes − glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide oxidase and peroxidase (Abd El-Ghany, 2020). A. Humam and others reported on the antioxidant activity of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum triggered at thermal stress (Humam et al., 2019).

Production and availability of extracellular enzymes such as proteases, carbohydrases, amylases, lipases and phytases in LAB contribute to the fact that probiotics based on them positively affect the growth rate of the host (Gatesoupe, 1999; Grayfer et al., 2018) improving digestibility of the feed (Kim et al., 2007).

Reproductive health and quality of fish gametes is a very important issue for fish farming, especially for highly breeding species, since most of them show poor quality of gametes. The previous studies have shown that some LAB, presented in Table 2, had a positive effect on the reproduction of aquatic animals. These probiotics enhanced gonadal growth (Lombardo et al., 2011b), induced follicles maturation process (Gioacchini et al., 2012), contributed to ovulation and fertility; increased count and quality of sperm and eggs, and promoted hatching and survival of embryos and larvae (Miccoli et al., 2015; Vílchez et al., 2015; Mehdinejad et al., 2018; Aydın and Çek-Yalnız, 2019).

Thus, there is a growing body of experimental evidence that the health, zootechnical performance of cultured aquatic animals and cultured water quality can be improved through the prophylactic use of probiotics.

Table 1

Beneficial effect of lactic acid bacteria probiotics on aquatic host in aquaculture.

Table 2

Lactic acid bacteria application in aquaculture and its effect on reproduction of aquatic host.

4 Conclusion

Aquaculture is one of the most dynamically developing areas of fisheries, designed to meet the needs of a growing population for protein. However, a serious problem hindering the growth of production in this sector of fish farming is infectious diseases of fish and shellfish. To solve it, it is necessary to search for new environmentally friendly antimicrobials that are alternative to antibiotics and chemicals, while at the same time effectively ensuring the prevention and control of diseases of aquatic animals.

Probiotics are one of the antimicrobial alternatives to antibiotics. They are effective in the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases of bacterial etiology, after antibiotic therapy and vaccination courses, and in reducing economic losses during feed changes or transportation. LAB are popular probiotic strains used to combat bacterial, fungal and partly viral pathogens. Their action is aimed at increasing immunity, digestion, protection against pathogens, and promoting growth and reproduction of fish and shellfish. Numerous studies have shown that probiotics can serve as an alternative to antibiotics. Of course, it is impossible to refuse vaccinations, disinfections, and the use of antibiotics, anthelmintic and coccidiostatics with appropriate indications. Still, it is necessary to restore the normal microbiota after their application. If the mucous membrane of the digestive tract and normal gut microbiota are damaged, the effective production is impossible, since the nutritional feed components simply cannot be absorbed.

Thus, probiotics based on LAB, the beneficial properties and in vitro and in vivo safety of which have been thoroughly investigated, are very effective, environmentally friendly and suitable for the entire aquaculture system (basic and supplementary nutrition, water purification, prevention and treatment of diseases), and positively affecting the health, productivity, and sustainability of hydrobionts and consumer health.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

Acknowledgments

This research is fund by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Grant No. AP09258412)

References

  • Abd El-Ghany WA. 2020. Paraprobiotics and postbiotics: Contemporary and promising natural antibiotics alternatives and their applications in the poultry field. Open Veterin J 10: 323–330. [Google Scholar]
  • Abdelfatah EN, Mahboub HHH. 2018. Studies on the effect of Lactococcus garvieae of dairy origin on both cheese and Nile tilapia (O. niloticus). Int J Vet Sci Med 6: 01–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Adel M, Yeganeh S, Dawood MAO, et al. 2017a. Effects of Pediococcus pentosaceus supplementation on growth performance, intestinal microflora and disease resistance of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquacult Nutr 23: 1401–1409. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Aitzhanova A, Oleinikova Y, Mounier J, et al. 2021. Dairy associations for the targeted control of opportunistic Candida. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 37. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Akbar A, Ali I, Anal AK. 2016. Industrial perspectives of lactic acid bacteria for Biopreservation and Food safety. J Animal Plant Sci 26: 938–948. [Google Scholar]
  • Akter N, Hashim R, Pham HQ, et al. 2020. Lactobacillus acidophilus antimicrobial peptide is antagonistic to Aeromonas hydrophila. Front Microbiol 11: 570851. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Al-Dohail MA, Abdullah M, Roshada H, et al. 2009. Effects of the probiotic, Lactobacillus acidophilus, on the growth performance, haematology parameters and immunoglobulin concentration in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus, Burchell 1822) fingerling. Aquac Res 40: 1642–1652. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Al-Dohail MA, Hashim R, Aliyu-Paiko M. 2010. Evaluating the use of Lactobacillus acidophilus as a biocontrol agent against common pathogenic bacteria and the effects on the haematology parameters and histopathology in African catfish Clarias gariepinus juveniles: L. acidophilus as a probiotic in African catfish. Aquac Res. 42: 1–14. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Al-Dohail MA, Hashim R, Aliyu-Paiko M. 2011. Evaluating the use of Lactobacillus acidophilus as a biocontrol agent against common pathogenic bacteria and the effects on the haematology parameters and histopathology in African catfish Clarias gariepinus juveniles. Aquac Res 42: 196–209. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Amabile-Cuevas C, Gardenas-Garcia M, Ludgar M. 1995. Antibiotic resistance. Am Sci 83: 320–329. [Google Scholar]
  • Amal MNA, Saad MZ. 2011. Streptococcosis in tilapia (Oreochromisniloticus): a review. Pertanika J Trop Agric Sci 34: 195–206. [Google Scholar]
  • Ananou S, Maqueda M, Martinez-Bueno M, et al. 2007. Biopreservation, an ecological approach to improve the safety and shelf-life of foods. Commun Curr Res Edu Topics Trends Appl Microbiol 475–486. [Google Scholar]
  • Ananou S, Valdivia E, Bueno MM, et al. 2004. Effect of combined physicochemical preservatives on enterocin AS-48 activity against the enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus CECT 976 strain. J Appl Microbiol 97: 48–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Anater A, Manyes L, Meca G, et al. 2016. Mycotoxins and their consequences in aquaculture: a review. Aquaculture 451: 1–10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Araújo C, Muñoz-Atienza E, Poeta P, et al. 2016. Characterization of Pediococcus acidilactici strains isolated from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) feed and larvae: safety, DNA fingerprinting, and bacteriocinogenicity. Dis Aquat Organ 119: 129–143. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Arena MP, Capozzi V, Russo P, et al. 2018. Immunobiosis and probiosis: antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria with a focus on their antiviral and antifungal properties. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102: 9949–9958 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Arques JL, Rodríguez E, Nuñez M, et al. 2008. Antimicrobial activity of nisin, reuterin and the lactoperoxidase system on Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus in Cuajada, a semisolid dairy product manufactured in Spain. J Dairy Sci 91: 70–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Arsène MMJ, Davares AKL, Andreevna SL, et al. 2021. The use of probiotics in animal feeding for safe production and as potential alternatives to antibiotics. Veterin World 14: 319–328. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ashraf W. 2005. Accumulation of heavy metals in kidney and heart tissues of Epinephelus microdon fish from the Arabian Gulf. Environ Monit Assess 101: 311–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Assefa A, Abunna F. 2018. Maintenance of fish health in aquaculture: review of epidemiological approaches for prevention and control of infectious disease of fish. Vet Med Int 20: e5432497. [Google Scholar]
  • Aydın F, Çek-Yalnız Ş. 2019. Effect of probiotics on reproductive performance of fish. N E Sciences 4: 153–162. [Google Scholar]
  • Backialakshmi S, Meenakshi RN, Saranya A, et al. 2015. Biopreservation of fresh orange juice using antilisterial Bacteriocins 101 and antilisterial Bacteriocin 103 purified from Leuconostoc mesenteroides. J Food Process Technol 6: 479. [Google Scholar]
  • Balcazar JL, Blas I, Ruiz-Zarzuela I, et al. 2006. The role of probiotics in aquaculture. Vet Microbiol 114: 173–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Balcázar JL, De Blas I, Ruiz-Zarzuela I, et al. 2007. Enhancement of the immune response and protection induced by probiotic lactic acid bacteria against furunculosis in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 51: 185–93. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Balcazar JL, Vendrell D, de Blas I, et al. 2007a. In vitro competitive adhesion and production of antagonistic compounds by lactic acid bacteria against fish pathogens. Vet Microbiol 122: 373–380. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Balcázar JL, Vendrell D, De Blas I, et al. 2009. Effect of Lactococcus lactis CLFP 100 and Leuconostoc mesenteroides CLFP 196 on Aeromonas salmonicida infection in brown trout (Salmo trutta). J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 17: 153–157. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Banerjee G, Ray AK. 2017. The advancement of probiotics research and its application in fish farming industries. Res Veterin Sci 115: 66–77. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Baños A, Ariza JJ, Nuñez C, et al. 2019. Effects of Enterococcus faecalis UGRA10 and the entero­cin AS-48 against the fish pathogen Lactococcus garvieae. Studies in vitro and in vivo. Food Microbiol 77: 69–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Beck BR, Kim D, Jeon J, et al. 2015. The effects of combined dietary probiotics Lactococcus lactis BFE920 and Lactobacillus plantarum FGL0001 on innate immunity and disease resistance in olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Fish Shellfish Immunol 42: 177–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Benhamed S, Guardiola FA, Mars M, et al. 2014. Pathogen bacteria adhesion to skin mucus of fishes. Vet Microbiol 171: 1–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bhakta JN, Ohnishi K, Munekage Y, et al. 2012. Characterization of lactic acid bacteria-based probiotics as potential heavy metal sorbents. J Appl Microbiol. 112: 1193–1206. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Biswas G, Korenaga H, Nagamine R, et al. 2013a. Elevated cytokine responses to Vibrio harveyi infection in the Japanese pufferfish (Takifugu rubripes) treated with Lactobacillus paracasei spp. paracasei (06TCa22) isolated from the Mongolian dairy product. Fish Shellfish Immunol 35: 756–765. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bondarenko VM, Chuprinina RP, Vorobyova MA. 2003. Mechanism of action of probiotic drugs. BIO preparations. (in rus) 3: 2–5. [Google Scholar]
  • Borisova MN, Pichugina TA, Zavyalova EA, Droshnev AE, Kolomytsev SA. 2007. Fish diseases. Review of the epizootic situation for 2006. Veterinary life (in rus) 14: 2–3. [Google Scholar]
  • Brazaca SG, Bicalho RC. 2016. The Lactococcus genus as a potential emerging mastitis pathogen group: a report on an outbreak investigation. J Dairy Sci 99: 9864–9874. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cabello FC. 2006. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment. Environ Microbiol 68: 1137–1144. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cabello FC, Godfrey HP, Buschmann AH, et al. 2016. Aquaculture as yet another environmental gateway to the development and globalisation of antimicrobial resistance. Lancet Infect Dis 16: 127–133. [Google Scholar]
  • Carlson JM, Leonard AB, Hyde ER, et al. 2017. Microbiome disruption and recovery in the fish Gambusiaaffinis following exposure to broadspectrum antibiotic. Infect Drug Resist 10: 143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Carnevali O, Avella MA, Gioacchini G. 2013. Effects of probiotic administration on zebrafish development and reproduction. Gen Comp Endocrinol 188: 297–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Carnevali O, de Vivo L, Sulpizio R, et al. 2006. Growth improvement by probiotic in European sea bass juveniles (Dicentrarchus labrax, L.), with particular attention to IGF-1, myostatin and cortisol gene expression. Aquaculture 258: 430–438. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Castex M, Lemaire P, Wabete N, et al. 2009. Effect of dietary probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici on antioxidant defences and oxidative stress status of shrimp, Litopenaeus stylirostris. Aquaculture 294: 306–313. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chandrakala N, Soundharanayaki G. 2017. Role of probiotics in aquaculture − a review. Int J Curr Innov Res 3: 577–582. [Google Scholar]
  • Chang CI, Liu WY. 2002. An evaluation of two probiotic bacterial strains, Enterococcus faecium SF68 and Bacillus toyoi, for reducing edwardsiellosis in cul­tured European eel (Anguilla anguilla). J Fish Dis 25: 311–315. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chapman CMC, Gibson GR, Rowland I. 2011. Health benefits of probiotics: are mixtures more effective than single strains? Eur J Nutr 50: 1–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chizhaeva AV, Dudikova GN. 2017. Scientific review: theoretical and practical aspects of designing probiotic drugs. Sci Rev 2: 157–166. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chomwong S, Charoensapsri W, Amparyup P, et al. 2018. Two host gutderived lactic acid bacteria activate the proPO system and increase resistance to an AHPND-causing strain of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Dev Comp Immunol 89: 54–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dalie DKD, Deschamps AM, Atanasova-Penichon V, et al. 2010. Potential of Pediococcus pentosaceus (L006) isolated from maize leaf to fumonisin-producing suppress fungal growth. J Food Prot 73: 1129–1137. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dawood MAO, Koshio S, Ishikawa M, et al. 2015a. Effects of partial substitution of fish meal by soybean meal with or without heat-killed Lactobacillus plantarum (LP20) on growth performance, digestibility, and immune response of amberjack, Seriola dumerili juveniles. BioMed Res Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/514196. [Google Scholar]
  • Dawood MAO, Koshio S, Ishikawa M, et al. 2016a. Effects of dietary supplementation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus or/and Lactococcus lactis on the growth, gut microbiota and immune responses of red sea bream, Pagrus major. Fish Shellfish Immunol 49: 275–285. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dawood MAO, Koshio S, Ishikawa M, et al. 2017c. Physiological response, blood chemistry profile and mucus secretion of red sea bream (Pagrus major) fed diets supplemented with Lactobacillus rhamnosus under low salinity stress. Fish Physiol Biochem 43: 179–92. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dawood MAO, Koshio S. 2016. Recent advances in the role of probiotics and prebiotics in carp aquaculture: a review. Aquaculture 454: 243–251. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Di J, Chub Z, Zhang Z, et al. 2019. Evaluation of the potential probiotic Bacillus subtilis isolated from two ancient sturgeons on growth performance, serum immunity and disease resistance of Acipenserdabryanus. Fish Shellfish Immunol 93: 711–719. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Doan HH, Hoseinifar SH, Khanongnuch Ch, et al. 2018. Host-associated probiotics boosted mucosal and serum immunity, disease resistance and growth performance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture 491: 94–100. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Doan HV, Soltani M, Ring E. 2021. In vitro antagonistic effect and in vivo protective efficacy of Gram-positive probiotics versus Gram-negative bacterial pathogens in finfish and shellfish. Aquaculture 540: e736581. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), Koutsoumanis K, Allende A, et al. 2021. Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 13: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2020. EFSA J 19: 6377. [Google Scholar]
  • Eid R, Jakee JE, Rashidy A, et al. 2016. Potential antimicrobial activities of probiotic Lactobacillus strains isolated from raw milk. J Probiotic Health 4: 1030–1038. [Google Scholar]
  • Elayaraja S, Annamalai N, Mayavu P, et al. 2014. Production, purification and characterization of bacteriocin from Lactobacillus murinus AU06 and its broad antibacterial spectrum. Asian Pacific J Tropic Biomed 4: 305–311. [Google Scholar]
  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit ed Nations). 2006. State of world aquaculture, In: FAO fisheries, technical paper, Rome, 500. [Google Scholar]
  • FAO. 2019. Report of the FAO/MSU/WB First Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on a Progressive Management Pathway to Improve Aquaculture Biosecurity (PMP/AB), In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1254, Rome, 76. [Google Scholar]
  • FAO. 2020. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. Rome, 224. [Google Scholar]
  • Feng J, Chang X, Zhang Y, et al. 2019. Effects of Lactococcus lactis from Cyprinus carpio L. as probiotics on growth performance, innate immune response and disease resistance against Aeromonas hydrophila. Fish Shellfish Immunol 93: 73–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fuchs S, Sontag G, Stidl R, et al. 2008. Detoxification of patulin and ochratoxin A, two abundant mycotoxins, by lactic acid bacteria. Food Chem Toxicol 46: 1398–1407. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Galvez A, Abriouel H, López RL, et al. 2007. Bacteriocin-based strategies for food biopreservation. Int J Food Microbiol 120: 51–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Garcés ME, Olivera NL, Fernández M, et al. 2020. Antimicrobial activity of bacteriocin-producing Carnobacterium spp. isolated from healthy Patagonian trout and their potential for use in aquaculture. Aquac Res 00: 1–11 [Google Scholar]
  • Gasser M, Zingg W, Cassini A, et al. 2019. Attributable deaths and disability adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in Switzerland. Lancet Infect Dis 19: 17–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gatesoupe FJ. 1999. The use of probiotics in aquaculture — a review. Aquaculture 180: 147–165. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ghosh K, Banerjee S, Moon UM, et al. 2017. Evaluation of gut associated extracellular enzyme-producing and pathogen inhibitory microbial community as potential probiotics in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Int J Aquac 7: 143–158. [Google Scholar]
  • Gioacchini G, Giorgini E, Merrifield DL, et al. 2012. Probiotics can induce follicle maturational competence: the Danio rerio case. Biol. Reprod. 86: 65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gioacchini G, Lombardo F, Merrifield DL, et al. 2011b. Effects of probiotic on zebrafish reproduction. J Aquacult Res Develop S1: 002. [Google Scholar]
  • Giri SS, Kim HJ, Kim SG, et al. 2021. Effects of dietary Lactiplantibacillus plantarum subsp. plantarum L7, Alone or in Combination with Limosilactobacillus reuteri P16, on Growth, Mucosal Immune responses, and Disease Resistance of Cyprinus carpio. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 13: 1747–1758. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Giri SS, Sukumaran V, Oviya M. 2013. Potential probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum VSG3 improves the growth, immunity, and disease resistance of tropical Fresh water fish, Labeo rohita. Fish Shellfish Immunol 34: 660–666. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Giri SS, Yun S, Jun JW, et al. 2018. Therapeutic effect of intestinal autochthonous Lactobacillus reuteri P16 against waterborne lead toxicity in Cyprinus carpio. Front Immunol 9: 24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Giri SS, Yun S, Jun JW, et al. 2019. Characterisation of lactic acid bacteria isolated from the gut of Cyprinus carpio that may be effective against lead toxicity. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins 11: 65–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gobi N, Vaseeharan B, Chen JC, et al. 2018. Dietary supplementation of probiotic Bacillus licheniformis Dahb1 improves growth performance, mucus and serum immune parameters, antioxidant enzyme activity as well as resistance against Aeromonas hydrophila in tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus. Fish Shellfish Immunol 74: 501–508. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gong L, He H, Li D, et al. 2019. A new isolate of Pediococcus pentosaceus (SL001) with antibacterial activity against fish pathogens and potency in facilitating the immunity and growth performance of grass carps. Front Microbiol 10: 1384. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gourama H, Bullerman LB. 1995. Inhibition of growth and aflatoxin production of Aspergillus flavus by Lactobacillus species. J Food Prot 58: 1249–1256. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gourama H. 1997. Inhibition of growth and mycotoxin production of Penicilliumby Lactobacillus species. LWT Food Sci Technol 30: 279–283. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Grayfer L, Kerimoglu B, Yaparla A, et al. 2018. Mechanisms of fish macrophage antimicrobial immunity. Front Immunol 9: 1105. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gueimonde M, Sánchez B, Reyes-Gavilán CGDL, et al. 2013. Antibiotic resistance in probiotic bacteria. Front Microbiol 4: 202. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hai NV. 2015. The use of probiotics in aquaculture. J Appl Microbiol 119: 917–935. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Halttunen T, Salminen S, Tahvonen R. 2007. Rapid removal of lead and cadmium from water by specific lactic acid bacteria. Int J Food Microbiol 114: 30–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hamdan AM, El-Sayed AF, Mahmoud MM. 2016. Effects of a novel marine probiotic, Lactobacillus plantarum AH 78, on growth performance and immune response of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). J Appl Microbiol 120: 1061–1073. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Harikrishnan R, Balasundaram C, Heo MS. 2010. Effect of probiotics enriched diet on Paralichthys olivaceus infected with lymphocystis disease virus (LCDV). Fish Shellfish Immunol 29: 868–874. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Harikrishnan R, Kim MC, Kim JS, et al. 2011. Protective effect of herbal and probiotics enriched diet on haematological and immunity status of Oplegnathus fasciatus (Temminck & Schlegel) against Edwardsiella tarda. Fish Shellfish Immunol 30: 886–93. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • He S, Ran C, Qin C, et al. 2017. Antiinfective effect of adhesive probiotic Lactobacillus in fish is correlated with their spatial distribution in the intestinal tissue. Sci Rep 7: 13195. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hoseinifar SH, Sun YZ, Wang A, et al. 2018. Probiotics as means of diseases control in aquaculture, a review of current knowledge and future perspectives. Front Microbiol 9: 2429. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hosseini M, Kolangi Miandare H, Hoseinifar SH, et al. 2016. Dietary Lactobacillus acidophilus modulated skin mucus protein profile, immune and appetite genes expression in gold fish (Carassius auratus gibelio). Fish Shellfish Immunol 59: 149–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Huang JB, Wu YC, Chi SC. 2014. Dietary supplementation of Pediococcus pentosaceus enhances innate immunity, physiological health and resistance to Vibrio anguillarum in orange-spotted grouper (Epinephelus coioides). Fish Shellfish Immunol 39: 196–205. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Humam AM, Loh TC, Foo HL, et al. 2019. Effects of feeding different postbiotics produced by Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance, carcass yield, intestinal morphology, gut microbiota composition, immune status, and growth gene expression in broilers under heat stress. Anim. (Basel) 9: 644. [Google Scholar]
  • Ingolf F Nes, Dag A Brede, Dzung B Diep. 2013. Class II Non-Lantibiotic Bacteriocins. In: Handbook of Biologically Active Peptides (Second Edition), Academic Press, P. 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  • Jung YJ, Lee YT, Le Ngo, et al. 2017. Heat-killed Lactobacillus casei confers broad protection against influenza A virus primary infection and develops heterosubtypic immunity against future secondary infection. Sci Rep. 7: 1–12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kaktcham PM, Temgoua JB, Zambou MN, et al. 2018. In Vitro evaluation of the probiotic and safety properties of bacteriocinogenic and non-bacteriocinogenic lactic acid bacteria from the intestines of Nile Tilapia and common carp for their use as probiotics in aquaculture. Probiot Antimicrob Prot 10: 98–109. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Khalil AA, Abou-Gabal AE, Elfaramawy AM, et al. 2013. Lactic acid bacteria as antimycotic and antimycotoxins agents against toxigenic Fusarium species associated to maize grains stored in egyptian markets. J Pure Appl Microbiol 7: 93–105. [Google Scholar]
  • Kim D, Beck BR, Heo SB, et al. 2013. Lactococcus lactis BFE920 activates the innate immune system of olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus), resulting in protection against Streptococcus iniae infection and enhancing feed effciency and weight gain in large scale field-studies. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 35: 1585–1590. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kim EY, Kim YH, Rhee MH, et al. 2007. Selection of Lactobacillus spp. PSC101 that produces active dietary enzymes such as amylase, lipase, phytase and protease in pigs. J Gen Appl Microbiol 53: 111–117. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kuebutornye FKA, Abarike ED, Lu Y, et al. 2019. Mechanisms and the role of probiotic Bacillus in mitigating fish pathogens in aquaculture. Fish Physiol Biochem 46: 819–841. [Google Scholar]
  • Lavermicocca P, Valerio F, Evidente A, et al. 2000. Purification and characterization of novel antifungal compounds from the sourdough Lactobacillus plantarum strain 21B. Appl Environ Microbiol 66: 4084–4090. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Le B, Yang SH. 2018. Probiotic potential of novel Lactobacillus strains isolated from salted-fermented shrimp as antagonists for Vibrio parahaemolyticus. J Microbiol 56: 138–144. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lee JS, Cheng H, Damte D, et al. 2013. Effects of dietary supplementation of Lactobacillus pentosus PL11 on the growth performance, immune and antioxidant sys­tems of Japanese eel Anguilla japonica challenged with Edwardsiella tarda. Fish Shellfish Immunnol 34: 756–761. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Li Y, Tian G, Dong G, et al. 2018. Research progress on the raw and modified montmorillonites as adsorbents for mycotoxins: a review. Appl Clay Sci 168: 299–311. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu W, Ren P, He S, et al. 2013. Comparison of adhesive gut bacteria composition, immunity, and disease resistance in juvenile hybrid tilapia fed two different Lactobacillus strains. Fish Shellfish Immunol 35: 54–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lombardo F, Gioacchini O, Carnevali O. 2011b. Probiotic-based nutritional effects on killifish reproduction. Fish Aquacult J 27: 33. [Google Scholar]
  • Mandala V, Senb SK, Mandalb NC. 2007. Detection, isolation and partial characterization of antifungal compound(s) produced byPediococcus acidilactici LAB 5. Nat Product Commun 2: 671–674. [Google Scholar]
  • Marco ML, Sanders ME, Gänzle M, et al. 2021. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on fermented foods. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 1–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Martirosyan V, Hovnanyan K, Ayrapetyan S. 2012. Carbon dioxide as a microbial toxicity enhancer of some antibacterial agents: a new potential water purification tool. Int Scholar Res Notices Article ID 906761: 7. [Google Scholar]
  • Marty-Teysset C, De La Torre F, Garel J. 2000. Increased production of hydrogen peroxide by Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus upon aeration: involvement of an NADH oxidase in oxidative stress. Appl Environ Microbiol 66: 262–267. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mehdinejad N, Imanpour MR, Jafari V. 2018. Combined or individual effects of dietary probiotic, Pediococcusacidilactici and nucleotide on reproductive performance in goldfish (Carassiusauratus). Probiot Antimicrob Proteins 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • Merrifield DL, Harper GM, Dimitroglou A, et al. 2010b. Possible influence of probiotic adhesion to intestinal mucosa on the activity and morphology of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) enterocytes. Aquacult Res 41: 1268–1272. [Google Scholar]
  • Merrifield DL, Rodiles A. 2015. The fish microbiome and its interactions with mucosal tissues. In: Mucosal health in Aquaculture, Academic Press, pp. 273–295. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Merrifieldd DL, Dimitroglou A, Bradley G, et al. 2010. Probiotic applications for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum) I. Effects on growth performance, feed utilization, intestinal microbiota and related health criteria. Aquacult Nutr 16: 504–510. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Miccoli A, Gioacchini G, Maradonna F, et al. 2015. Beneficial bacteria affect Danio rerio development by the modulation of maternal factors involved in autophagic, apoptotic and dorsalizing processes. Cellul Physiol Biochem 35: 1706–1718. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mojgani N, Shahali Y, Dadar M. 2020. Immune modulatory capacity of probiotic lactic acid bacteria and applications in vaccine development. Beneficial Microbes 11: 213–226 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Monachese M, Burton JP, Reid G. 2012. Bioremediation and tolerance of humans to heavy metals through microbial processes: a potential role for probiotics. Appl Environ Microbiol 78: 6397–6404. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Muhialdin BJ, Algboory HL, Kadum H, et al. 2020b. Antifungal activity determination for the peptides generated by Lactobacillus plantarum TE10 against Aspergillus flavus in maize seeds. Food Control 109: 106898. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Muhialdin BJ, Zawawi N, Razis AFA, et al. 2021. Antiviral activity of fermented foods and their probiotics bacteria towards respiratory and alimentary tracts viruses. Food Control 127: 108140. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Munir MB, Hashim R, Chai YH, et al. 2016. Dietary prebiotics and probiotics influence growth performance, nutrient digestibility and the expression of immune regulatory genes in snakehead (Channa striata) fingerlings. Aquaculture 460: 59–68. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Muthulakshmi S, Naveen KK, Chandranayaka S, et al. 2016. Antifungal and zearalenone inhibitory activity of Pediococcus pentosaceus isolated from dairy products on Fusarium graminearum. Front Microbiol 7: 890. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nácher-Vázquez M, Ballesteros N, Canales Á, et al. 2015. Dextrans produced by lactic acid bacteria exhibit antiviral and immunomodulatory activity against salmonid viruses. Carbohydr Polym 124: 292–301. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nakayama Y, Moriya T, Sakai F, et al. 2014. Oral administration of Lactobacillus gasseri SBT2055 is effective for preventing influenza in mice. Sci Rep 4: 4638. [Google Scholar]
  • Nandi A, Banerjee G, Dan SK, et al. 2018. Evaluation of in vivo probiotic efficiency of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens in Labeorohita challenged by pathogenic strain of Aeromonashydrophila MTCC 1739. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 10: 391–398. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nikoskelainen S, Ouwehand AC, Bylund G, et al. 2003. Immune enhancement in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) by potential probiotic bacteria (Lactobacillus rhamnosus). Fish Shellfish Immunol 15: 443–452. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nishihira J, Nishimura M, Moriya T, et al. 2018. Lactobacillus gasseri potentiates immune response against influenza virus infection. In: Immunity and Inflammation in Health and Disease. Academic Press, pp. 249–255. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nouri M, Shahhosseini N, Shahhosseini S, et al. 2015. Investigation of antagonistic effects of isolated lactic acid bacteria from different cheeses of Gorgan city against main intestinal pathogenic bacteria. J Food Process Technol 6: 472. [Google Scholar]
  • Nozdrin GA, Ivanova AB, Shevchenko AI, et al. 2005. Scientific basis for the use of probiotics in poultry farming. Novosibirsk, Novosib. State Agrarian Univ. (in rus.), 224 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Nurhajati J, Atira, Aryantha INP, et al. 2012. The curative action of Lactobacillus plantarum FNCC 226 to Saprolegnia parasitica A3 on catfish (Pangasius hypophthalamus Sauvage). Int Food Res J 19: 1723–1727. [Google Scholar]
  • Okocha RC, Olatoye IO, Adedeji OB. 2018. Food safety impacts of antimicrobial use and their residues in aquaculture. Public Health Rev 39: 21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Perez-Sanchez T, Balćazar JL, Merrifield DL, et al. 2011. Expression of immune-related genes in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) induced by probiotic bacteria during Lactococcus garvieae infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol 31: 196–201. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Perez-Sanchez T, Mora-Sanchez B, Vargas A, et al. 2020. Changes in intestinal microbiota and disease resistance following dietary postbiotic supplementation in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Microb Pathog 142: 104060. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Panigrahi A, Kiron V, Satoh S, et al. 2010. Probiotic bacteria Lactobacillus rhamnosus influences the blood profile in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). Fish Physiol Biochem 36: 969–977. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Peltonen K, El-Nezami H, Haskard C, et al. 2001. Aflatoxin B1 binding by dairy strains of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria. J Dairy Sci 84: 2152–2156. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Picchietti S, Fausto AM, Randelli E, et al. 2009. Early treatment with Lactobacillus delbrueckii strain induces an increase in intestinal T-cells and granulocytes and modulates immunerelated genes of larval Dicentrarchus labrax (L.). Fish Shellfish Immunol 26: 368–376. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pinotti L, Ottoboni M, Giromini C, et al. 2016. Mycotoxin contamination in the EU feed supply chain: A focus on cereal byproducts. Toxins 8: 45. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pirarat N, Kobayashi T, Katagiri T, et al. 2006. Protective effects and mechanisms of a probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus rhamnosus against experimental Edwardsiella tarda infection in tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Vet Immunol Immunopathol 113: 339–347. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pokhilenko VD, Perelygin VV. 2011. Bacteriocins: their biological role and trends of application. Electronic scientific journal “INVESTIGATED IN RUSSIA“ (in rus.). Available from: http://zhurnal.ape.relarn.ru/articles//016.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • Pridmore RD, Pittet AC, Praplan F, et al. 2008. Hydrogen peroxide production by Lactobacillus johnsonii NCC 533 and its role in anti-Salmonella activity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 283: 210–215. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Protonotariou E, Dimitroulia E, Pournaras S, et al. 2010. Trends in antimicrobial resistence of clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in Greece between 2002 and 2007. J Hosp Infect 75: 225–227. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Qin C, Xu L, Yang Y, et al. 2014. Comparison of fecundity and offspring immunity in zebrafish fed Lactobacillus rhamnosus CICC 6141 and Lactobacillus casei BL23. Reproduction 147: 52–64. [Google Scholar]
  • Reis JA, Paula AT, Casarotti SN, et al. 2012. Lactic acid bacteria antimicrobial compounds: characteristics and applications. Food Eng Rev 4: 124–140. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rico A, Phu TM, Satapornvanit K, et al. 2013. Use of veterinary medicines, feed additives and probiotics in four major internationally traded aquaculture species farmed in Asia. Aquaculture 412: 231–243. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rine ChR, Roy PCh, Sarkar ShL, et al. 2019. Isolation, characterization, and assessment of lactic acid bacteria toward their selection as poultry probiotics. BMC Microbiol 19: 253. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ringø E, Doan HV, Lee SO, et al. 2020. Probiotics, lactic acid bacteria and bacilli: interesting supplementation for aquaculture. J Appl Microbiol 129: 116–136. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ringø E, Hoseinifar SH, Ghosh K, et al. 2018. Lactic acid bacteria in finfish-An update. Front Microbiol 9: 1818. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ringø E. 2020. Probiotics in shellfish aquaculture. Aquac Fish 5: 1–27. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rodriguez-Estrada U, Satoh S, Haga Y, et al. 2013. Effects of inactivated Enterococcus faecalis and mannan oligosaccharide and their combination on growth, immunity, and disease protection in rainbow trout. N Am J Aquac 75: 416–28. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ross PR, Morgan S, Hill C. 2002. Preservation and fermentation: past, present and future. Int J Food Microbiol 79: 3–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Safari R, Adel M, Lazado CC, et al. 2016. Host-derived probiotics Enterococcus casseliflavus improves resistance against Streptococcus iniae infection in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) via immunomodulation. Fish Shellfish Immunol 52: 198–205. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sandes S, Alvim L, Silva B, et al. 2015. Local and systemic immunostimulatory effects of probiotic lactic acid bacteria isolated from cattle in germ-free mice. J Probiotic Health. 3: 7. [Google Scholar]
  • Satish Kumar R, Kanmani P, Yuvaraj N, et al. 2011. Purification and characterization of enterocin MC13 produced by a potential aquaculture probiont Enterococcus faecium MC13 isolated from the gut of Mugil cephalus. Can J Microbiol 57: 993–1001. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Seo DJ, Jung D, Jung S, et al. 2020. Inhibitory effect of lactic acid bacteria isolated from kimchi against murine norovirus. Food Control 109: 106881. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Seo S, Jung D, Wang X, et al. 2013. Combined effect of lactic acid bacteria and citric acid on Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella typhimurium. Food Sci Biotech 22: 1171–1174. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sergaliev NH, Andronov EE, Pinaev AG. 2019. Study of microflora of sturgeon fish species bred in UZV using metagenomics methods. Collect Sci Works CNCAB (in rus). 8: 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  • Settanni L, Corsetti A. 2008. Application of bacteriocins in vegetable food biopreservation. Int J Food Microbiol 121: 123–138. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Simonova EI, Kondrashkina KM, Rystsova EO, et al. 2020. Distribution of basic mycotoxins in feed raw materials and their characteristics. Bull Sci Practice (in rus) 6: 168–177. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Smirnova SV, Didenko LV, Azizbekyan RR, et al. 2010. Structural and functional characteristics of bacterial biofilms. Microbiology (in rus). 79: 435–446. [Google Scholar]
  • Soltani M, Abdy E, Alishahi M, et al. 2017. Growth performance, immune-physiological variables and disease resistance of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) orally subjected to different concentrations of Lactobacillus plantarum. Aquac Int 25: 1913–33. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Soltani M, Ghosh K, Hoseinifar SH, et al. 2019. Genus Bacillus, promising probiotics in aquaculture: Aquatic animal origin, bio-active components, bioremediation and efficacy in fish and shellfish. Rev Fish Sci Aquac 27: 331–379. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Son VM, Chang CC, Wu MC, et al. 2009. Dietary administration of the probiotic, Lactobacillus plantarum, enhanced the growth, innate immune responses, and disease resistance of the grouper Epinephelus coioides. Fish Shellfish Immunol 26: 691–698. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sorroza L, Real F, Acosta F, et al. 2013. A probiotic potential of Enterococcus gallinarum against Vibrio anguillarum infection. Fish Pathol 48: 9–12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Squadrone S, Prearo M, Brizio P, et al. 2013. Heavy metals distribution in muscle, liver, kidney and gill of European catfish (Silurus glanis) from Italian Rivers. Chemosphere. 90: 358–65. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Stanciu O, Juan C, Miere D, et al. 2017. Occurrence and co-occurrence of Fusarium mycotoxins in wheat grains and wheat flour from Romania. Food Control. 73: 147–155. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Steenbergen L, Sellaro R, van Hemert S, et al. 2015. A randomized controlled trial to test the effect of multispecies probiotics on cognitive reactivity to sad mood. Brain Behav Immun 48: 258–264. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stentiford G, Neil D, Peeler E, et al. 2012. Disease will limit future food supply from the global crustacean fishery and aquaculture sectors. J Invertebr Pathol 110: 141–157. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stentiford GD, Sritunyalucksana K, Flegel TW, et al. 2017. New paradigms to help solve the global aquaculture disease crisis. PLoSPathog 13: e1006160. [Google Scholar]
  • Stoyanova LG, Ustyugova EA, Netrusov AI. 2012. Antimicrobial metabolites of lactic acid bacteria: diversity and properties. Appl Biochem Microbiol 48: 259–275. [Google Scholar]
  • Streit E, Naehrer K, Rodrigues I, et al. 2013. Mycotoxin occurrence in feed and feed raw materials worldwide: long‐term analysis with special focus on Europe and Asia. J Sci Food Agric 93: 2892–2899. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sun Y, He M, Cao Z, et al. 2018. Effects of dietary administration of Lactococcus lactis HNL12 on growth, innate immune response, and disease resistance of humpback grouper (Cromileptes altivelis). Fish Shellfish Immunol 82: 296–303. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Suzer C, Çoban D, Kamaci HO, et al. 2008. Lactobacillus spp. bacteria as probiotics in gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata, L.) larvae: effects on growth performance and digestive enzyme activities. Aquaculture 280: 140–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Talpur AD, Memon AJ, Khan MI, et al. 2013. Gut Lactobacillus sp. bacteria as probiotics for Portunus pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758) larviculture: effects on survival, digestive enzyme activities and water quality. Invertebr Reproduct Dev 57: 173–184. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tanwar J, Das S, Fatima Z, Hameed S. 2014. Multidrug resistance: an emerging crisis. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis e541340. [Google Scholar]
  • Taoka Y, Yuge K, Maeda H, et al. 2008. The efficiency of Lactobacillus plantarum in diet for juvenile Japanese flounder Paralichthys olivaceus reared in a closed recirculating system. Aquac Sci. 56: 193–202. [Google Scholar]
  • Tarakanov BV. 2000. Mechanisms of action of probiotics on digestive tract microflora and animal organism. Veterinary (In Rus) 1: 47–54. [Google Scholar]
  • Thilsted SH, Thorne-Lyman A, Webb P, et al. 2016. Sustaining healthy diets: the role of capture fisheries and aquaculture for improving nutrition in the post-2015 year. Food Policy 61: 126–131. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vand ZDA, Alishahi M, Tabande MR. 2014. Effects of different level of Lactobacillus casei as probiotic on growth performance and digestive enzymes activity of Barbus grypus. Int J Biosci 7: 106–111. [Google Scholar]
  • Vendrell D, Balcazar JL, Blas ID, et al. 2008. Protection of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from lactococcosis by probiotic bacteria. Comp Immunol Microb 31: 337–345. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Verschuere L, Rombaut G, Sorgeloos P, et al. 2000. Probiotic bacteria as biological control agents in aquaculture. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 64: 655–671. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Vesterlund S, Vankerckhoven V, Saxelin M, et al. 2007. Safety assessment of Lactobacillus strains: Presence of putative risk factors in faecal, blood and probiotic isolates. Int J Food Microbiol 116: 325–331. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Vila-Donat P, Marín S, Sanchis V, et al. 2018. A review of the mycotoxin adsorbing agents, with an emphasis on their multi-binding capacity, for animal feed decontamination. Food Chem Toxicol 114: 246–259. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Vílchez MC, Santangeli S, Maradonna F, et al. 2015. Effect of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus on the expression of genes involved in European eel spermatogenesis. Theriogenology 84: 1321–1331. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang L, Yue T, Yuan Y, et al. 2015. A new in sight in to the adsorption mechanism of patulin by the heat-inactive lactic acid bacteria cells. Food Control 50: 104–110. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang M, Yi M, Lu M, et al. 2020. Effects of probiotics Bacillus cereus NY5 and Alcaligenes faecalis Y311 used as water additives on the microbiota and immune enzyme activities in three mucosal tissues in Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus reared in outdoor tanks. Aquaculture Reports. 17: 100309. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang YB, Li JR, Lin J. 2008. Probiotics in aquaculture: challenges and outlook. Aquaculture. 281: 1–4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang YM, Wang YG. 2008. Advance in the mechanisms and application of microecologics in aquaculture. Progr Veterin Med. 29: 72–75. [Google Scholar]
  • World Bank. 2013. Fish to 2030: prospects for fisheries and aquaculture. In: Agriculture and Environmental Services Discussion Paper, 3. [Google Scholar]
  • Xia Y, Cao J, Wang M, et al. 2019. Effect of Lactococcus lactis subsp.lactis JCM5805 on colonization dynamics of gut microbiota and regulation of immunity in early ontogenetic stages of tilapia. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 86: 53–63. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Xia Y, Lu M, Chen G, et al. 2018. Effects of dietary Lactobacillus rhamnosus JCM1136 and Lactococcus lactis subsp. Lactis JCM5805 on the growth, intestinal microbiota, morphology, immune response and disease resistance of juvenile Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 76: 368–79. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Yudin SM, Yegorova AM, Makarov VV. 2018. Analysis of human microbiota. Russian and Foreign Experience. Int J Appl Fundam Res. 11: 175–180. [Google Scholar]
  • Zhai Q, Yu L, Li T, et al. 2017. Effect of dietary probiotic supplementation on intestinal microbiota and physiological conditions of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) under waterborne cadmium exposure. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 110: 501–513. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang C-N., Zhang J-L., Guan W-C, et al. 2017. Effects of Lactobacillus delbrueckii on immune response, disease resistance against Aeromonas hydrophila, antioxidant capability and growth performance of Cyprinus carpio Huanghe var. Fish Shellfish Immunol 68: 84–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zheng J, Wittouck S, Salvetti E, et al. 2020. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: Description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 70: 2782–2858. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Chizhayeva A, Amangeldi A, Oleinikova Y, Alybaeva A, Sadanov A. 2022. Lactic acid bacteria as probiotics in sustainable development of aquaculture. Aquat. Living Resour. 35: 10

All Tables

Table 1

Beneficial effect of lactic acid bacteria probiotics on aquatic host in aquaculture.

In the text
Table 2

Lactic acid bacteria application in aquaculture and its effect on reproduction of aquatic host.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

Main factors contributing to fish disease in aquaculture.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

Problems caused by antibiotics in aquaculture.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3

Selection criteria for successful probiotic candidate.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.