<i>Aeromonas salmonicida:</i> determination of an antigen associated with protective immunity and evaluation of an experimental bacterin

Abstract. Protection against Aeromonas salmonicida was determined by passive immunization and with various bacterin preparations. Rabbit antiserum was prepared against a rough, virulent strain of A. salmonicida (AS‐1R), the same strain boiled (AS‐1R, boiled), and an avirulent, smooth strain of this same isolate (AS‐1S). Cross‐absorption, cross‐passive protection and analysis by counter immunoelectrophoresis of various extraction methods were studied. It was shown that AS‐1R cells contained an additional antigen not present in AS‐1R (boiled) and AS‐1S cells. Antiserum to the AS‐1R antigen passively protected sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka (Walbaum), against a virulent challenge, and antisera to AS‐1R (boiled) and AS‐1S were not protective. The antigen was not destroyed by formalin or heat at 5°C for 60 min, but it appeared to be partially inactivated with proteolytic enzymes. The antigen was produced in casein yeast beef (CYB) broth up to 32 h but not thereafter, and low yields were obtained in tryptic soy or brain heart infusion (BHI) broth. It was extracted from cells with ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and especially alkaline hydrolysis, but not with proteolytic enzymes or detergents. The detergents appeared to destroy the antigen. We concluded that the antigen was protein and is most likely the external A‐protein (AP) reported for rough, virulent strains of A, salmonicida . Various methods of preparing A. salmonicida bacterins were evaluated by determining the level of protective immunity induced in intraperitoneally (i.p.) vaccinated fish. Growth of cells in CYB or BHI broth resulted in production of only rough (autoagglutinated in saline) variants of A. salmonicida . Although only rough variants were associated with protective immunity, one strain was not protective, it was avirulent by bath challenge. Bacterins prepared in CYB were more efficacious than those grown in BHI, but inactivation with formalin, iodine, or glutaraldehyde worked equally well. However, boiling the bacterin or filtering the cells from the bacterin removed its efficacy. Methods of releasing the AP were evaluated by sonification, pH‐lysis, disaggregation and treatment with EDTA, and all treatments worked equally well. Also, precipitation on to aluminium or use of Freund's complete adjuvant did not significantly improve the protection. In parenterally vaccinated fish, protection was demonstrated by challenging the fish at various levels by bath, injection or cohabitation with infected fish. The best protection was demonstrated using the cohabitation challenge method. The potency and field efficacy of an A. salmonicida bacterin prepared in CYB broth and extracted with 5 mM EDTA was evaluated. Fish were vaccinated by i.p, injection and potency was determined in the laboratory by experimental challenge and in the field by natural challenge. Chinook salmon, O.ishawytschu (Walbaum), developed immunity within seven days at 10°C. The bacterin could be diluted up to 1:2000 without loss of potency. The field tests results were equivocal; however, (he prevalence of infection was lower in vaccinated fish.