Kent Michael L, Benda Susan, St-Hilaire Sophie, Schreck Carl B
Department of Microbiology, Oregon State University, 220 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2013 May;25(3):341-51. doi: 10.1177/1040638713482124. Epub 2013 Mar 27.
Histology is often underutilized in aquatic animal disease screening and diagnostics. The agreement between histological classifications of infection and results using diagnostic testing from the American Fisheries Society's Blue Book was conducted with 4 common salmon pathogens: Aeromonas salmonicida, Renibacterium salmoninarum, Ceratomyxa shasta, and Nanophyetus salmincola. Adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Oregon were evaluated, and agreement between tests was calculated. Live and dead (both pre- and postspawning) salmon were collected from the Willamette River, Oregon, its tributaries, the Willamette Hatchery, and after holding in cool, pathogen-free water during maturation at Oregon State University. Sensitivity and specificity of histology compared to Blue Book methods for all fish, live fish only, and dead (pre- and postspawned combined) fish only were, respectively, as follows: A. salmonicida (n = 105): specificity 87.5%, 87.5%, 87.5% and sensitivity 38.6%, 14.8%, 60.0%; R. salmoninarum (n = 111): specificity 91.9%, 85.7%, 97.7% and sensitivity 16.0%, 7.1%, 27.2%; C. shasta (n = 136): specificity 56.0%, 63.3%, 28.6% and sensitivity 83.3%, 86.2%, 71.4%; N. salmincola (n = 228): specificity 68.2%, 66.7%, not possible to calculate for dead fish and sensitivity 83.5%, 80.5%, 87.3%. The specificity was good for bacterial pathogens. This was not the case for C. shasta, likely due to detection of presporogenic forms only by histology. Sensitivity of histology for bacterial pathogens was low with the exception of dead fish with A. salmonicida. Kappa analysis for agreement between Blue Book and histology methods was poor to moderate. However, histological observations revealed the presence of other pathogens that would not be detected by other methods.
组织学在水生动物疾病筛查和诊断中常常未得到充分利用。针对4种常见的鲑鱼病原体：杀鲑气单胞菌、鲑鱼肾杆菌、夏斯塔角孢子虫和鲑居尾孢虫，对感染的组织学分类与美国渔业协会蓝皮书中诊断检测结果之间的一致性进行了研究。对俄勒冈州的成年奇努克鲑（Oncorhynchus tshawytscha）进行了评估，并计算了检测之间的一致性。从俄勒冈州的威拉米特河及其支流、威拉米特孵化场采集了活鱼和死鱼（产卵前后），并在俄勒冈州立大学成熟期间置于凉爽、无病原体的水中暂养后进行检测。与蓝皮书方法相比，组织学对所有鱼类、仅活鱼以及仅死鱼（产卵前后合并）的敏感性和特异性分别如下：杀鲑气单胞菌（n = 105）：特异性87.5%、87.5%、87.5%，敏感性38.6%、14.8%、60.0%；鲑鱼肾杆菌（n = 111）：特异性91.9%、85.7%、97.7%，敏感性16.0%、7.1%、27.2%；夏斯塔角孢子虫（n = 136）：特异性56.0%、63.3%、28.6%，敏感性83.3%、86.2%、71.4%；鲑居尾孢虫（n = 228）：特异性68.2%、66.7%，死鱼无法计算，敏感性83.5%、80.5%、87.3%。细菌性病原体的特异性良好。夏斯塔角孢子虫的情况并非如此，这可能是因为组织学仅能检测到孢子形成前的形态。除了感染杀鲑气单胞菌的死鱼外，组织学对细菌性病原体的敏感性较低。蓝皮书方法与组织学方法之间的一致性kappa分析结果为差到中等。然而，组织学观察揭示了存在其他方法无法检测到的病原体。
