Please explain "Immunity" in regards to ich

[Savant]

I have been seeing people mentioning their fish have built an immunity to ich and other parasites.

Im curious as how does something develop immunity to a parasite? I can understand resistance to parasites through something like a well developed slime coat, but immunity? Does the fish's body develop some sort of active defense specifically against a parasite through repetitive exposure? And if the fish is truly immune does the ich parasite die do to a lack of a host thus clearing the tank after 12 weeks?

I am confused by this and hope somebody can clarify. Thanks

[rwb500]

fish have adaptive immune systems, like people do. i am not sure if there is any evidence proving that fish can become immune to ich, but it is theoretically possible, especially in a closed environment without any new strains coming in.

[MondoBongo]

one of the big things to note, is that not all fish are created equal in regards to their immune response, and not all fish have been comprehensively studied for their immunity to these parasites.

also generally noted as the immunity being transient, in some things i've read lasting up to 6 months.

some of these links from the following post have some of this information in them:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23523035&postcount=86

summarized in the following:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.int-res.com%2Farticles%2Fdao%2F1%2Fd001p019.pdf&ei=xYvnVI-uI8GfggSTm4HoBA&usg=AFQjCNEnqmeVK9xjY3mKIAwmVSB8_5ZM1A&sig2=0x_iWisyU76DZmjzWOwAeA

A certain degree of resistance to C. irritans invasion was observed in fish that had survived several infections.

Fish susceptibility. Different species of fish showed different susceptibility to Cryptocaryon imitans infections. While Pernpheris vanicolensis and Sparus aurata juveniles were readily infected and usually died within 1 or 2 wk, Mugil cephalus, Oreochromis rnossambicus and Abudefduf saxatilis, which were kept in the same infected tank, s u ~ v e dse veral waves of tomite attacks after which they apparently acquired immunity, sustaining little or no infection for several months. S. aurata larvae as young as 3 wk could be infected.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050464885700435

Acquired protection toCryptocaryon irritanshas been demonstrated for the first time, using the grey mullet,Chelon labrosus, as an experimental host. Fish, immunized by controlled infections, established immunity against challenge infections withC. irritans, the degree of protection correlating with both intensity and exposure levels, with relatively few fish developing full protection. Protection lasted for six months in the absence of re-exposure to the parasite. There was no evidence of cross-protection in mullet against infection with the closely related fish parasite,Ichthyophthirius multifiliis.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-10/sp/feature/index.htm

Fish can develop immunity to Cryptocaryon irritans that can last for up to six months (Colorni, 1987 and Colorni & Burgess, 1997).

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164

As is seen with other diseases, general fish health and environmental factors including water quality will affect the status of the fish's immune system and may worsen the effects of an infection. If the immune status of the fish is compromised or if environmental factors are less than optimal, Cryptocaryon infection will be even more explosive and harmful.

Fish that survive a Cryptocaryon infection develop immunity, which can prevent significant disease for up to 6 months (Burgess 1992; Burgess and Matthews 1995). However, these survivors may act as carriers and provide a reservoir for future outbreaks (Colorni and Burgess 1997).

More targeted development of a vaccine to protect against Cryptocaryon irritans has been ongoing for a number of years (Yambot and Song 2006; Hatanaka 2007; Luo et al. 2007; Bai et al. 2008), and preliminary results are encouraging. However, vaccine development is a lengthy process, and no commercial vaccines are currently available.

[MondoBongo]

for some weird reason some of the text i copied and pasted from the PDF files got all munged up. not sure why, but if you go to the original PDF's it should ready just fine.

most of these things i've found don't have strict details on how the immune response works though.

i was able to find a pretty deep in to the parasite, but haven't had a chance to read it all yet:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.int-res.com%2Farticles%2Fdao2003%2F54%2Fd054p147.pdf&ei=-hDuVM_eEMSigwSIsITQAg&usg=AFQjCNFLH6K2RVszRqXyxZohIQOCKdRTiw&sig2=YozcWKcER7zLjIx2DQb6Lg

if the above link doesn't have it, you might be best served to try to find original paper most of the other articles are citing:

Cryptocaryon irritans Brown 1951, the cause of ‘white spot disease’ in marine fish: an update - Colorni, 1987 and Colorni & Burgess, 1997

here is the link to buy it, but i can't find it for free. curse the academic pay wall!

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018360323287

[Dmorty217]

Its only a short term immunity, add any new fish and watch the outbreak happen again

[3FordFamily]

I post about this frequently. Rather than reiterating it search my posts. My fish don't sucomb to ich only new additions can and occasionally do. All the resident fish show no signs due to repeated introduction of parasites in to my system as a result of no qt procedure. I am able to successfully keep fish that many cannot even with proper qt and treatment procedures. I can't pretend to know exactly why but I see it akin to how antibacterial soaps have led to super bacterias and frequent infections because it suppresses immune responses (lack of exposure).

Another somewhat relevant analogy would be that of vaccines. Fish not exposed to the parasite for long periods (not vaccinated per se) are much more likely to succomb

[Savant]

Thanks for the info! I wish my dog would develop immunity to fleas but I doubt I could survive the repeated infection process...lol

[3FordFamily]

Interestingly some wild dogs build up somewhat of an immunity. You can catch ten strays from the same "pack" and some of the individuals, generally older or middle aged (but not very old) have few fleas while others are infested from head to toe.

Witnessed this a lot when ln I worked in veterinary care. Same with mites, mange, and other pests.

And unlike dogs, fish can develop a thicker slime coat as a shield which helps further.

[ca1ore]

Mondo referenced the available research. Everything else is simply anecdotes, speculation, hobbyist observations or unsubstantiated opinion. I don't necessarily doubt folks experiences, but there is no scientific bases for many of the conclusions. For example, I have wondered to myself whether a fish that is infected with ich doesn't simply develop a thicker slime coat, thus preventing reinfection. Not an 'immune' system response, per see, but potentially quite effective. Also speculation!

[3FordFamily]

There are plenty of scientific research studies that show similar results in similar circumstances. One thing many people don't understand (aside from rudimentary scientific process logic and rudimentary statistics) is that correlation does not equal causation. Science can provide narrow answers only as suggestions. There are too many other factors and unknown (and untested) factors that render much of it useless at best. To say that x causes y because in this experiment (many aren't true experiments rather quasi experiments or pre experiments) x happened and then y followed. Even if it is reliable (ie repeated tests show similar or the same results) it is still not valid.

As an example, if you're at a shooting range and you aim for the bullseye and shoot top left each time, that's a reliable result but not necessarily valid.

Extraneous factors are inherent in literally every single scientific study. When different research is conducted with actual experiments (not to be confused with quasi and pre experiments which are moderately implicit at best) in various ways, that can cover the hundreds of exterraneous other independent variables that can affect the dependent variable, that's when causality may be more strongly linked to correlation.

I argue that results speak louder than any research. My 11 years experience and 3-7 tanks at a time is purely anecdotal and a poor sample size from which to draw inferences about the population of those who do what I do. However, many seasonsed veterans do it as well successfully.

Rather than scientifically prove what I believe works (and have irrefutable evidence to support in the form of my current and past successes that can be confirmed by anyone at any point in time), I choose to operate logically, reading the science and taking it all with a grain of salt. Much can be learned from scientific research, it helps explain reality one small fragment at a time.

So many things appear true on paper but in practice fail epically. Socialism is a great example. On paper it's fantastic. However, exterraneous factors such as human psychology render it impossible to create the socialist utopia possible on paper.

[MondoBongo]

There are plenty of scientific research studies that show similar results in similar circumstances.

please cite references then, and stop presenting conjecture.

I argue that results speak louder than any research.

this is laughable.

[MondoBongo]

So many things appear true on paper but in practice fail epically. Socialism is a great example. On paper it's fantastic. However, exterraneous factors such as human psychology render it impossible to create the socialist utopia possible on paper.

this is the absolute height of false dichotomy, and has nothing to do with the current argument.

this has no bearing on controlled scientific study, provable, and repeatable results.

if we operated strictly off of anecdotal evidence or what people "think" happens we would still believe the earth was flat and that "bad air" and "bad humors" caused disease.

[Paul B]

Does the fish's body develop some sort of active defense specifically against a parasite through repetitive exposure? And if the fish is truly immune does the ich parasite die do to a lack of a host thus clearing the tank after 12 weeks?


I generally do not post on ich threads because of all the arguments that will follow, but I will say this. Fish do become immune from parasites and almost everything else. Some of my fish are over 24 years old and have never had any parasites in their 43 year old tank. All of my fish are immune (and they are almost all spawning) as I can take any fish, from anywhere, even the sea and put it in my reef with no worry about parasites. I have been doing this for about 35 years after I learned how to get fish in the condition to become immune. I am presently writing a book and this is in it. I have posted this numerous times but won't go into it any more on here because of what I already said. Good luck and have a great day.
:bum:

[Pastey]

I sort of view ich as a secondary infection. If a fish's health is less than ideal, it lacks the "energy" to fight off the infection and succumbs to it. If a fish is well fed and eats proper nutrition, their immune system can overcome. I know ich is a parasite and not an infection...I'm just making a correlation.

[3FordFamily]

please cite references then, and stop presenting conjecture.



this is laughable.

Mondo, you must have missed the negation of references that are often cited and the rudimentary explanation of how one should not draw inferences based on them, for the most part. I will reiterate, correlation does not equate causality.

this is the absolute height of false dichotomy, and has nothing to do with the current argument.

this has no bearing on controlled scientific study, provable, and repeatable results.

if we operated strictly off of anecdotal evidence or what people "think" happens we would still believe the earth was flat and that "bad air" and "bad humors" caused disease.

You misused the term "dichotomy" as none was presented by any stretch of the imagination.

The very nature of analogies are that they're not generally directly relevant to the discussion at hand, hence the term "analogy".

And the purpose of my post you read poorly, apparently, was to point out the inherent fallacies of logic, scientific method, statistical significance, and experiment processes. I was suggesting that perhaps my (admittedly) anecdotal evidence was just as useless as many "research" studies due to the aforementioned issues.

I painted the door of my business red. In march, sales were 120k. I repainted the door in april. In may, sales were 180k. The red door must have increased sales.

Unfortunately, because we know so little of marine biology, this ANALOGY (again, not directly relevant to the discussion point) explains how drawing inferences on so many research experiment outcomes is often a fallacy. There are an exorbitant amount of extraneous factors that could have affected the dependent variable being tested.

[3FordFamily]

I generally do not post on ich threads because of all the arguments that will follow, but I will say this. Fish do become immune from parasites and almost everything else. Some of my fish are over 24 years old and have never had any parasites in their 43 year old tank. All of my fish are immune (and they are almost all spawning) as I can take any fish, from anywhere, even the sea and put it in my reef with no worry about parasites. I have been doing this for about 35 years after I learned how to get fish in the condition to become immune. I am presently writing a book and this is in it. I have posted this numerous times but won't go into it any more on here because of what I already said. Good luck and have a great day.
:bum:

Same here but your experience dwarfs mine. I have put fish noticeably covered in ich in to my systems to help them heal. My fish little to no signs and certainly do not succumb. I do this because my water parameters and the conditions of my reefs are conducive to the healing of the fish. I also feed well, a variety of foods, soaked in selcon and garlic. I do not believe that garlic cures ich, but I do believe it can be linked to better immune response and most important it certainly increases appetite. A fish that is eating many calories per day is more likely to kick a parasite. Anything I can do to increase nutrition is a win/win for the fish.

I would love to hear more from you, and read your book. Please let me know when it is published.

I sort of view ich as a secondary infection. If a fish's health is less than ideal, it lacks the "energy" to fight off the infection and succumbs to it. If a fish is well fed and eats proper nutrition, their immune system can overcome. I know ich is a parasite and not an infection...I'm just making a correlation.


I largely concur, there are certain fish that are too weak to fight off the parasite. Again, so many factors could lead to this but I think ich is the catalyst for the destruction of the fish rather than the cause, as you say. To put it another way, it's a symptom but not the root cause or disease.

[3FordFamily]

I also have no way to quantify or prove this, but I suspect that stress is a more deadly factor to parasite-related death in marine fish than is the presence of the parasite in the fish's ecosystem.

I have stressed fish out in the past with QT procedures and still lost them. For a fish collected from the reef, going in to a tank with PVC pipe as structure, a beneficial bacteria population insufficient to support the fish's bioload (and thus requiring frequent water changes) is hardly natural or conducive to low stress levels.

Water changes cause stress because even if the water is pre-mixed, pre dosed, pre-heated, it is still not identical to the water in the system currently (which is why you're removing the old water, you want to improve it). The act of water changes themselves are very stressful for the fish during the initial phase.

I do not QT, but I also do not do water changes for at least a month following an addition that is likely to be easily stressed or is more commonly affected by parasites. (IE many tangs, angels, hard to keep wrasses, etc.). My fish are left alone less feeding procedures for the first month to adapt and relax.

HOWEVER, if your tank is full of aggressive fish who will bully a new addition, a QT may be a LESS stressful endeavor. In my case, I spread aggression with multiple angels, multiple tangs, multiple wrasses, etc and add more than one at a time to reduce aggression. I've never had a fish die from being bullied, surprisingly but I do have a hospital tank handy in case this does happen.

[shermanator]

I'm curious... are the arguments that this "immunity" is innate or acquired?

If it's acquired, how would that work? I mean, fish have immune systems like we do and they are not equipped to acquire immunity to parasites (nor are we). If immunity to parasites was possible on a reasonable time scale, there would be no TB (or many other tropical diseases) -- or at the very least we would have vaccines against TB.

I would believe that some fish have innate immunity (not a species of fish, but individual fish and their off-spring). But the idea that animals can acquire immunity to parasites is not consistent with basic immunology.

In reading this thread, I am not sure whether the pro-immunity side wants to consider peer-reviewed science, but here is a good general review on immune systems and the difficulty in acquiring immunity to parasites: http://www.nature.com/nri/journal/v10/n2/full/nri2673.html (this isn't about Ich in general, but it does cover dinoflagellates and Ich is a dino).

[3FordFamily]

One more tidbit to think about -- Pay attention to who funds research. I didn't even TOUCH bias but it's a HUGE concern. Many "studies" are conducted with an agenda.

Not saying this is the case, but don't you think a study conducted or funded by Kent Marine, Cupramine, or any company offering products to "cure" ich might skew results?

Anyone remember the "Study" that "proved" that vaccinations cause autism? When in reality, we have increased our knowledge of the spectrum over time so what seems like an increase in autism occurrence is actually an increase in the amount of diagnosis. The spectrum is much better understood now and things like Aspberger's syndrome were completely unknown to exist let alone be on the autism spectrum.

Heck when many of us were kids, you could go to school with black eyes and no one said a word. Health checks were far less exhaustive, same with psych evaluations. We now hyperfocus on many aspects of our children's lives. Mostly for the good, but some would say it's a bit excessive.

[shermanator]

I generally do not post on ich threads because of all the arguments that will follow, but I will say this. Fish do become immune from parasites and almost everything else. Some of my fish are over 24 years old and have never had any parasites in their 43 year old tank.

Do you really mean immunity? Or do you mean asymptomatic? There is a huge difference from a science perspective, and from a tank-observer-perspective there is no difference in appearance.

[shermanator]

Anyone remember the "Study" that "proved" that vaccinations cause autism? When in reality, we have increased our knowledge of the spectrum over time so what seems like an increase in autism occurrence is actually an increase in the amount of diagnosis. The spectrum is much better understood now and things like Aspberger's syndrome were completely unknown to exist let alone be on the autism spectrum.

That study was falsified by the authors and their findings: a) were not ever accepted by mainstream science and b) cannot be explained by increased diagnoses.

But what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[3FordFamily]

I'm curious... are the arguments that this "immunity" is innate or acquired?

If it's acquired, how would that work? I mean, fish have immune systems like we do and they are not equipped to acquire immunity to parasites. If immunity to parasites was possible on a reasonable time scale, there would be no TB (or many other tropical diseases) -- or at the very least we would have vaccines against TB.

I would believe that some fish have innate immunity (not a species of fish, but individual fish and their off-spring). But the idea that animals can acquire immunity to parasites is not consistent with basic immunology.

In reading this thread, I am not sure whether the pro-immunity side wants to consider peer-reviewed science, but here is a good general review on immune systems and the difficulty in acquiring immunity to parasites: http://www.nature.com/nri/journal/v10/n2/full/nri2673.html (this isn't about Ich in general, but it does cover dinoflagellates and Ich is a dino).

Acquired immunity. Fish in the ocean are subjected to parasites. In our closed, smaller systems, they are much more likely to kill. Partially due to the increase of stress of making it to our systems, and partially due to the fact that the parasites can reproduce and locate hosts more efficiently.

I do not think it can be passed on to their offspring. If I get a vaccination annually for something, (or my dog or any other animal) I wouldn't expect their offspring to have the same immunity due both to the time constraint (annual vaccinations..) and because I don't believe my tetanus vaccine can be passed to my daughter through birth.

Again, think about the discussions surrounding bacterial infections, super strains of bacteria, and suppressed immune response to bacteria as a direct result of frequent antibacterial soap use.

So, being exposed to parasites frequently forces immune response and repeated "immunity". I would argue that TRUE 100% immunity is NEVER attained, rather a strong defense against parasites can be developed. We incorrectly through the term "immunity" around.

A fish that has built a very strong immune defense to marine parasites can succumb to them eventually, given high stress levels, poor environment, and poor health. Thus, a true immunity is not achieved.

[3FordFamily]

That study was falsified by the authors and their findings: a) were not ever accepted by mainstream science and b) cannot be explained by increased diagnoses.

But what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Mainstream science did not accept it but many people (not in mainstream science) did, and this provided much benefit to the cash behind the "study".

The claim that it cannot be explained by increased diagnoses can not be refuted nor confirmed. I would say that increased diagnoses is one of several factors contributing to gradually increasing autism diagnosis.

Again, perhaps you need a definition of an analogy? They're not directly related to the topic at hand. That's the very point of an analogy.

[shermanator]

I do not think it can be passed on to their offspring. If I get a vaccination annually for something, (or my dog or any other animal) I wouldn't expect their offspring to have the same immunity due both to the time constraint (annual vaccinations..) and because I don't believe my tetanus vaccine can be passed to my daughter through birth.

Acquired immunity is not the same as getting a vaccine. Not to sound condescending, but this isn't the place to teach you immunology. But just one thing: you get yearly vaccines due to viral mutation. That's not applicable here and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, vaccines to bacteria like tetanus need boosters because you are not constantly challenged with the antigen. Also not applicable here. If you have a tank with Ich the fish are under constant selective pressure.

Again, think about the discussions surrounding bacterial infections, super strains of bacteria, and suppressed immune response to bacteria as a direct result of frequent antibacterial soap use.

No, it's due to misuse of prescription antibiotics. How would triclosan give rise to bata-lactam resistance? What does this have to do with this thread?

So, being exposed to parasites frequently forces immune response and repeated "immunity". I would argue that TRUE 100% immunity is NEVER attained, rather a strong defense against parasites can be developed. We incorrectly through the term "immunity" around.

A fish that has built a very strong immune defense to marine parasites can succumb to them eventually, given high stress levels, poor environment, and poor health. Thus, a true immunity is not achieved.

Yes, you do appear to be misusing the term "immunity". Can we settle on you using "asymptomatic"? That is what you are describing.

[Paul B]

Do you really mean immunity? Or do you mean asymptomatic?
I mean immunity. I wrote an article on this but I am not allowed to link it here.
Just remember, fish are not people. Totally different immune system specifically designed to protect the fish from parasites.

[shermanator]

I mean immunity. I wrote an article on this but I am not allowed to link it here.
Just remember, fish are not people. Totally different immune system specifically designed to protect the fish from parasites.

Can you PM it to me?

Here is another way to think about things... if you have a tank full of immune fish, why does ich persist without a host? We know the lifecycle of ich and it will not survive without a host.

[3FordFamily]

Acquired immunity is not the same as getting a vaccine. Not to sound condescending, but this isn't the place to teach you immunology. But just one thing: you get yearly vaccines due to viral mutation. That's not applicable here and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, vaccines to bacteria like tetanus need boosters because you are not constantly challenged with the antigen. Also not applicable here. If you have a tank with Ich the fish are under constant selective pressure.



No, it's due to misuse of prescription antibiotics. How would triclosan give rise to bata-lactam resistance? What does this have to do with this thread?



Yes, you do appear to be misusing the term "immunity". Can we settle on you using "asymptomatic"? That is what you are describing.

I have a working knowledge (albeit elementary in some facets) of the differences you describe. The wife has a doctorate of pharmacy, we chat about this stuff all the time unfortunately.

You are correct that prescription antibiotics are probably a stronger contributor than is antibacterial soap but both "achieve" the same results. And yes, I understand that in practice antibacterial soap takes several minutes in very warm water to be done correctly and virtually no one does this, but even reducing exposure slightly over time can make big differences. Any small change over time can make a notable difference (ANALOGY ALERT) evolution as an example.

The way you're operating, you will successfully find a difference between every conceivable analogy and the topic at hand - this because unless we are talking about marine parasites in closed systems, they're inherently different. So rather than pointing out the differences, why not focus on the similarities? I am trying to make connections for those of us that are not educated sufficiently on the topic matter. Hence, analogies.

So yes, they're not the same. Boosters and vaccines are different. Rather than focusing on that difference, why not focus on the other plethora of vaccines that are not boosters that many people/animals receive regularly?

The point of ALL of this discussion is to illustrate simply that vaccinations (exposure to dead cells of said disease) create a stronger immune defense against that disease. The similarity is that repeated exposure to parasites, particularly of different strains, can lead to the same result.

I am also immensely tired of hearing this poor attempt at negating the "immunity" (Again, we are fully aware this is not a true immunity) conversation:

"Oh but different strains are different so a fish cannot develop a strong immune protection from parasites. The end"

Sure, but the immune response to one parasite may aid in protecting it from others. The low lying fruit easy for the picking here is the example of slime coat. A fish with thicker slime coat will be better equipped to battle nearly all parasites. Period. Regardless of strain.

[CHSUB]

there is a study that suggests that it is not the fish developing "immunity" but the ich becoming "weak" after 20+ cycles with the same host!!! discuss...

[3FordFamily]

Can you PM it to me?

Here is another way to think about things... if you have a tank full of immune fish, why does ich persist without a host? We know the lifecycle of ich and it will not survive without a host.

There is a tank full of hosts that do not succumb. A very small percentage of the parasites DO indeed attach to the hosts in the tank, despite the fish and their "immunity".

I think it is safe to say that all of us can agree that because we do not see the parasite on the fish, and they appear healthy does NOT mean that it is not present. If I have a tick on me somewhere every once in awhile, I am not likely to die. If I have 20,000 ticks, we may have an issue.

As such, the life cycle continues, just with far less success.

[3FordFamily]

I mean immunity. I wrote an article on this but I am not allowed to link it here.
Just remember, fish are not people. Totally different immune system specifically designed to protect the fish from parasites.

I am now even more interested. Paul, let me know when I can purchase your book.

[MondoBongo]

Mondo, you must have missed the negation of references that are often cited and the rudimentary explanation of how one should not draw inferences based on them, for the most part. I will reiterate, correlation does not equate causality.



You misused the term "dichotomy" as none was presented by any stretch of the imagination.

The very nature of analogies are that they're not generally directly relevant to the discussion at hand, hence the term "analogy".

And the purpose of my post you read poorly, apparently, was to point out the inherent fallacies of logic, scientific method, statistical significance, and experiment processes. I was suggesting that perhaps my (admittedly) anecdotal evidence was just as useless as many "research" studies due to the aforementioned issues.

I painted the door of my business red. In march, sales were 120k. I repainted the door in april. In may, sales were 180k. The red door must have increased sales.

Unfortunately, because we know so little of marine biology, this ANALOGY (again, not directly relevant to the discussion point) explains how drawing inferences on so many research experiment outcomes is often a fallacy. There are an exorbitant amount of extraneous factors that could have affected the dependent variable being tested.

all you do is talk in circles, and offer dubious propositions.

false analogy, conflation, disinformation, and outright nonsense.

if you have any FACTS of actual information to support your assumptions, i would absolutely love to see it, but it appears you're just making this all up as you go along based on some cockamamie anecdotes and your personal beliefs.

this is not productive, nor is it helpful to the discussion. when confronted with solid studies and facts you fall back to obfuscation and shifting arguments.

science is a mechanism to route out subjective bias, and codify in real terms how things work. science denialism, especially when supplanting by unsubstantiated beliefs in wildly cobbled together subjective theories is dangerous.

[3FordFamily]

all you do is talk in circles, and offer dubious propositions.

false analogy (unapproved analogy), conflation, disinformation (in this case don't you mean MISinformation?), and outright nonsense (subjective).

if you have any FACTS of actual information to support your assumptions, i would absolutely love to see it, but it appears you're just making this all up as you go along based on some cockamamie anecdotes and your personal beliefs. (reading comprehension not strong with this one?)

this is not productive, nor is it helpful to the discussion. when confronted with solid studies and facts you fall back to obfuscation (attempting to make things easier to interpret is antonymous to this claim) and shifting arguments (I am relatively certain we're talking about the same argument. Inherent in the discussion is the scientific method, experiment design, marine biology, statistical significance, etc.).

science is a mechanism to route out subjective bias, and codify in real terms how things work. science denialism, especially when supplanting by unsubstantiated beliefs in wildly cobbled together subjective theories is dangerous.

I love your rebuttals they really say nothing much like you feel my "assertions" do not.

What do you constitute as facts? Research and my observations -- none of it is factual by the true definition of the term. I am not denying science, remotely. Anyone that denies science will fail in this hobby, among other things. I am saying that devoid of knowing every aspect of "research" you can not safely draw inferences about it's validity and application to the "population" (or the real world). Studies exist on both sides of nearly every argument. Sometimes equally on each side. I am saying that relying solely on science, OR solely on anecdotal evidence (what I provide) is foolish.

For a number of reasons, not QT'ing EVER works swimmingly (pun intended) for me. My fish thrive and I keep several fish others cannot despite them stringently following conventional wisdom provided by said studies. Several others have the same experience. Yet many who follow said QT and treatment guidelines have issues, eventually. This forum is the only evidence necessary to cite for THAT claim.

You can continue to dismiss logic as mindless banter if that is your perrogative, but ignoring evidence and relying on scientific method (often poorly-performed research/experiments if they are true experiments at all) is not logical. Correlation. Causality. They do not equivocate. People only control for (often poorly) KNOWN variables. There are many UNKNOWN variables or those that resources will not permit them to be controlled for the purpose of a study or research.

Marine biology is so wildly alien to us yet. This adds to my skepticism of any research cited (even if it affirms my own beliefs), because of the multitude of variables we do not yet understand. That's what I am saying. You're deflecting the message and getting lost.

[Paul B]

This is why I try very hard to never contribute to ich threads.

[MondoBongo]

it's pretty bad when you're getting to the level of parsing responses and alleging faulty grammar and context. that's good trolling, but not much else.

also, no, i meant "false analogy" and also very much meant "disinformation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

that is exactly what i mean. you are attempting to win an argument, again mind you, by deliberately attempting to undermine controlled scientific studies with outright nonsense, objectively nonsensical at that.

so you can keep extolling pseudo-science and unsubstantiated anecdotes. that's fine. the information i cited and posted speaks for itself.

Marine biology is so wildly alien to us yet. This adds to my skepticism of any research cited (even if the affirm my own belief), because of the multitude of variables we do not yet understand.

if you take issue with any of the research papers, then i would encourage you to challenge them with good science, not wildly subjective and uncontrolled postulates.

[3FordFamily]

This is why I try very hard to never contribute to ich threads.

LOL, I know what I am getting in to. I too often avoid them. People on that side of the aisle are extremely set in their ways and attempt to ridicule anyone with a differing belief.

It saddens me though reading through where people suggest knee-jerk reactions to what may be a relatively minor problem. Many of these only increase stress with harsh chemicals, stressful QT's that are not established, and even the stress of capturing the fish. Then, they're suggested to let their DT run fallow (annihilating any existing beneficial bacteria and bioload capacity) and proposing to re-introduce these fish back to this environment after the chemicals. These people will get burnt out on this hobby very quickly, and more fish than necessary may succumb.

I believe hospital tanks have their place. If they wish to do things that way they can. They shouldn't propose it as the ONLY solution to the issues discussed, however.

I think most of these people are well-intentioned, honestly. But many are inexperienced and rely heavily solely on poorly conducted research that supports their positions.

[shermanator]

I have a working knowledge (albeit elementary in some facets) of the differences you describe. The wife has a doctorate of pharmacy, we chat about this stuff all the time unfortunately.

I don't want to engage in comparing credentials, but I teach PharmD students immunology. I also run a well-funded lab that studies the intersection of oncology and immunology. I know what I'm talking about. If you don't believe me, PM me and I'd be happy to discuss over my work email.

Rather than focusing on that difference, why not focus on the other plethora of vaccines that are not boosters that many people/animals receive regularly?

I already did. to recap: Yearly vaccines are given due to mutation. Vaccines given every x years are needed because you are not typically exposed to the antigen. Neither has anything to do with the discussion about ich.

Again, we are fully aware this is not a true immunity)

Then stop calling it immunity. Immunity means something vastly different than asymptomatic carrier status. And a healthy fish that is resistant to ich due to slime coat, etc is also not immune to ich. Immunity has a specific meaning and you are not using it properly.

The low lying fruit easy for the picking here is the example of slime coat. A fish with thicker slime coat will be better equipped to battle nearly all parasites. Period. Regardless of strain.

I don't disagree that slime coat is important (see: mandarins). But that is NOT immunity.

[MondoBongo]

I think most of these people are well-intentioned, honestly. But many are inexperienced and rely heavily solely on poorly conducted research that supports their positions.

please cite and explain in which way(s) the noted research is faulty. don't just make more vague and ridiculous accusations.

please, enlighten us all to how these well accepted studies, methods, and practices are poorly conducted.

[3FordFamily]

it's pretty bad when you're getting to the level of parsing responses and alleging faulty grammar and context. that's good trolling, but not much else. (this is much different from picking apart analogies and making sweeping statements about one's intentions and positions - IE science denial-ism)

also, no, i meant "false analogy" and also very much meant "disinformation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

(I know what disinformation is. I have no agenda, nothing to gain by intentionally spreading incorrect information, thus disinformation is incorrectly utilized in your rebuttal)



that is exactly what i mean. you are attempting to win an argument, again mind you, by deliberately attempting to undermine controlled scientific studies with outright nonsense, objectively nonsensical at that.

so you can keep extolling pseudo-science and unsubstantiated anecdotes. that's fine. the information i cited and posted speaks for itself.



if you take issue with any of the research papers, then i would encourage you to challenge them with good science, not wildly subjective and uncontrolled postulates.

I would challenge you to research the research. I care not whether you agree or disagree with what I have proposed.

What you're suggesting is that I utilize something to support my attestations that I have attempted to largely discredit (for several valid reasons you overlook).

Please continue to live in the realm of theory. I will continue to utilize logic. I will supplement logic with science, rather than relying solely on it.

[3FordFamily]

please cite and explain in which way(s) the noted research is faulty. don't just make more vague and ridiculous accusations.

please, enlighten us all to how these well accepted studies, methods, and practices are poorly conducted.

Rather than knee-jerk replies, go back and read what I have already asserted.

Again, no research is needed to claim that research is often incorrectly conducted. Absolutely nothing is needed to state that causation does not equal correlation.

To conform to your method, here is an elementary explanation:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/statistical-studies/types-of-studies/v/correlation-and-causality

[MondoBongo]

I would challenge you to research the research. I care not whether you agree or disagree with what I have proposed.

What you're suggesting is that I utilize something to support my attestations that I have attempted to largely discredit (for several valid reasons you overlook).

Please continue to live in the realm of theory. I will continue to utilize logic. I will supplement logic with science, rather than relying solely on it.

the burden of proof falls on the party that makes the claim.

please explain the faults with the cited research, the community will be better off for it. none of the papers linked were theoretical.

you have offered no valid reasons, just conjectures and weak observational/anecdotal evidence.

[MondoBongo]

Again, no research is needed to claim that research is often incorrectly conducted.

if you are attempting to refute specific studies, then yes, you need to prove it. you can't just spout of vague generalizations then when asked for clarity dodge them.

Absolutely nothing is needed to state that causation does not equal correlation

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg

[shermanator]

If the pro-"immunity but not real immunity" crowd would just rephrase their arguments, I don't think there would need to be much discussion. I think everyone would agree that ich can reside in a tank for a LONG time without causing problems. This is due to a combination of excellent fish health and keeping them stress-free. But they are not immune.

I've lost fish to QT and I've even considered just letting my tank have ich because there are many cases of tanks flourishing with ich in the system (see Paul B's tank).

Paul sent me a PM with his article. It's excellent and I agree with everything in it except calling his observations "immunity". He is clearly a master of keeping fish happy and healthy (and keeping them asymptomatic from ich). What he has posted regularly makes me question if what I am doing is ideal (long QTs with pre-emptive medication). But all that said, there is no evidence his fish are immune to ich.

I will try to make this my last post. However, I make no promises I won't correct the on-going slaughter of basic immunology.

[3FordFamily]

Here is some literature explaining research designs, the difference between quasi, pre, and true experiments.

http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/experimentsquasi.jsp
http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/preexperimental.jsp

True experiments are often poorly controlled, biased in funding and implementation, incorrectly named "experiments" when in fact they are quasi or pre-experiments, and are narrowly-focused.

[3FordFamily]

the burden of proof falls on the party that makes the claim.

please explain the faults with the cited research, the community will be better off for it. none of the papers linked were theoretical.

you have offered no valid reasons, just conjectures and weak observational/anecdotal evidence.

Studies, Experiments, and Research (scienific in nature) are INHERENTLY theoretical. May be correct, but theoretical.

We are not in court, I have no burden of proof. I am not going to expel hours of my time discrediting research, particularly when the information needed to do so is not readily available. I've already spent a copious amount of time discussing this with you.

I am also certain that if research WAS done that discredited said research you cite, you would have a problem with it. I also have a bias, so anything I found would probably be moot anyway.

We are stating opinions. Neither of us are proposing fact. What IS a fact is that my fish do not die or show signs of parasites despite not QT'ing anything and have for years. Even when a fish infested with ich is thrown in my systems my fish prevail. That's a fact. If you would like proof, you can come witness this for yourself. You'd have to stay for 72 days though. I have a spare bedroom.

[MondoBongo]

I am also certain that if research WAS done that discredited said research you cite, you would have a problem with it. I also have a bias, so anything I found would probably be moot anyway


if you could produce any useful information about how the specific studies that i have cited are flawed i would love to debate it with you, however as it is you can't. you again fall back to shifting sand and presenting broad accusations about how studies are conducted in general? come on now, this is just absurd.

until such a time as you have that information, i would put my money on the scientific studies being the truth.

on a personal note, i actually quite rather enjoy new information. as long as it is factual, evidence based, and can be verified. sometimes assimilating new information in to your world view isn't a comfortable process, but you end up being better off for it.

[3FordFamily]

if you could produce any useful information about how the specific studies that i have cited are flawed i would love to debate it with you, however as it is you can't. you again fall back to shifting sand and presenting broad accusations about how studies are conducted in general? come on now, this is just absurd.

until such a time as you have that information, i would put my money on the scientific studies being the truth.

on a personal note, i actually quite rather enjoy new information. as long as it is factual, evidence based, and can be verified. sometimes assimilating new information in to your world view isn't a comfortable process, but you end up being better off for it.

The hypocrisy of your repetition is amusing. We can agree to disagree. I am not suggesting that all of the research is wrong. I am saying it can be reliable but not valid (or verifiable as you claim). It's very difficult to verify anything from those studies. That's the point. You may have the last word since it's evident that you must have it.

And I agree I like to read things that challenge my beliefs. It's a necessary part of personal growth. Many don't do this, however.

[hart24601]

And people say reefcentral isn't a friendly place!

[Paul B]

People on that side of the aisle are extremely set in their ways and attempt to ridicule anyone with a differing belief.


This is why I am writing a book. I don't have to care if anyone reads it or agrees with it. I am writing it for myself. I also don't need credentials as I have the longest running tank on here with probably the oldest (ich free) fish . I am also to old to get involved in stupid arguments.
Referrals:

Me. :smokin:

[rwb500]

I'm curious... are the arguments that this "immunity" is innate or acquired?

If it's acquired, how would that work? I mean, fish have immune systems like we do and they are not equipped to acquire immunity to parasites (nor are we). If immunity to parasites was possible on a reasonable time scale, there would be no TB (or many other tropical diseases) -- or at the very least we would have vaccines against TB.

I would believe that some fish have innate immunity (not a species of fish, but individual fish and their off-spring). But the idea that animals can acquire immunity to parasites is not consistent with basic immunology.

In reading this thread, I am not sure whether the pro-immunity side wants to consider peer-reviewed science, but here is a good general review on immune systems and the difficulty in acquiring immunity to parasites: http://www.nature.com/nri/journal/v10/n2/full/nri2673.html (this isn't about Ich in general, but it does cover dinoflagellates and Ich is a dino).

fish have acquired immune systems very similar to ours, and the whole premise of that article is that acquired immunity to parasites IS possible, just more difficult. Your whole post seems to be based on misreading the article you cited. Did you read it? It is simply identifying some factors that make parasites slightly more challenging. I could find you hundreds of papers about how it is challenging to kill staph aureus. That doesn't mean we can't do it.

There is no reason that a fish with an ich infection couldn't develop antibodies and keep those B cells for next time. It is a bit harder to fight parasites then single-cell pathogens, but still very possible, especially with repeated exposure to the exact same pathogen in a tiny glass box.

[rwb500]

it shouldn't take further proof, but here is another example of acquired immunity against a parasite. schistosomiasis is the closest thing I could think of to ich in a system that has been well-studied (humans):

PMID: 25142505

"It is also becoming apparent that protective immunity against schistosomula as they develop into adult worms develops slowly and is hastened by the dying of adult worms, either naturally or when they are killed by praziquantel."

"a wide variety of immune markers, both cellular and humoral, can be used to demonstrate exposure to schistosomes"

humoral immune markers = acquired antibodies

[MondoBongo]

And people say reefcentral isn't a friendly place!

you know what, you're absolutely right.

OP asked a question and it got way out of hand.

so i want to offer my apologies to the OP and 3FordFamily. regardless of the opposing views, it doesn't justify being rude.

cheers.

[3FordFamily]

you know what, you're absolutely right.

OP asked a question and it got way out of hand.

so i want to offer my apologies to the OP and 3FordFamily. regardless of the opposing views, it doesn't justify being rude.

cheers.


Ditto no hard feelings. Topic ignites people for sure.

[Paul B]

Topic ignites people for sure.


Didn't believe me, did you? :D

[3FordFamily]

Didn't believe me, did you? :D

Oh I did. Not my first rodeo I should have known better

[billsreef]

I argue that results speak louder than any research. My 11 years experience and 3-7 tanks at a time is purely anecdotal and a poor sample size from which to draw inferences about the population of those who do what I do. However, many seasonsed veterans do it as well successfully.

Just to make things interesting. I've got 30 years experience as a professional aquarist and Marine Biologist. At times with hundreds of tanks, thousands of fish, multiple thousands of gallons, and upwards of a million dollars or so worth fish at a time. In all those years, my experience happens to back the science that you so readily dismiss.

In reading this thread, I am not sure whether the pro-immunity side wants to consider peer-reviewed science,

There is side to this debate that prefers to dismiss the peer reviewed science ;)

One more tidbit to think about -- Pay attention to who funds research. I didn't even TOUCH bias but it's a HUGE concern. Many "studies" are conducted with an agenda.

Obviously you haven't bothered to actually look at the mentioned research and the researchers.

there is a study that suggests that it is not the fish developing "immunity" but the ich becoming "weak" after 20+ cycles with the same host!!! discuss...

Now what is with trying to bring science into the discussion :D

BTW, if you have a link or specific citation handy, that would be apreciated.

Yet many who follow said QT and treatment guidelines have issues, eventually. This forum is the only evidence necessary to cite for THAT claim.

And far more that don't have issues. With this forum also being usable to cite that claim...

Again, no research is needed to claim that research is often incorrectly conducted.

If your going to call specific research flawed, you need to actually be specific. Claiming specific research to be flawed based on generalities that some research can sometimes be flawed is just as illogical as assuming your red door was responsible for an increase in sales.

[Paul B]

Hey Bill, I thought you were sleeping

[billsreef]

Hey Bill, I thought you were sleeping

Coming soon. Spent most of the day running boat trips. Always sleep good after a day on the water :D

[shermanator]

fish have acquired immune systems very similar to ours, and the whole premise of that article is that acquired immunity to parasites IS possible, just more difficult. Your whole post seems to be based on misreading the article you cited. Did you read it?

Of course I read it. It's so short that I just read it again. Nothing in that article is consistent with the idea that a tank full of fish could possibly all get immunity to ich over any reasonable period of time (say 10 years).

[reefgeezer]

Is there a study on "Acquired Immunity to Dinoflagellate (or Protozoan) Parasites in Closed Marine Environments"? Something authored in the last 10 years would be great. Peer reviewed would be better. Anyone?

[rwb500]

Nothing in that article is consistent with the idea that a tank full of fish could possibly all get immunity to ich over any reasonable period of time (say 10 years).

well of course not. that's not what it's about, at all. there's also nothing about dinosaurs ever existing in there. that doesn't mean they never existed. the bottom line is this - fish have acquired immune systems essentially just like ours, and humans can develop immunity to parasites, so there is no logical reason to believe that fish cannot develop humoral resistance to parasitic antigens.

that paper only says that developing resistance to parasites can be difficult. that means difficult relative to the hundreds of organisms you breathe in and immediately develop resistance to every day.

if a tang can beat ich once, there is no reason to believe that it did not develop some B cell memory, and will better fight that same strain of ich in the future.

[3FordFamily]

Bill now I know why I got an infraction the other day - You disagree with me! :D

You used some of the same fallacies as your predecessor. I would produce biased results which is one of the very things I am saying affects the actual validity of many scientific studies.

I'm not going to spend the time to repeat myself, you can read. You nor I know the exact methodology used for any of those studies. That's my point sir.

[rwb500]

Is there a study on "Acquired Immunity to Dinoflagellate (or Protozoan) Parasites in Closed Marine Environments"? Something authored in the last 10 years would be great. Peer reviewed would be better. Anyone?

5 seconds of googling - study about freshwater ich from 1974. no need for anything more recent than that for this simple of a study. 4th graders could do this experiment.

"Mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) infected with sublethal doses of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, were free of parasites 21 days after infection. Fish remained free of parasites for at least 8 months when maintained in an infective environment. Such fish were refractory to reinfection with numbers of parasites that killed all normal, previously unexposed fish. Serum from fish recovered from previous infections with sublethal doses of parasites, immobilized free-swimming stages of I. multifiliis to a dilution of up to 1: 1024. The rise in serum-immobilization titre occurred between the 10th and 22nd days of infection, the period during which parasites disappeared from the body surface of the fish. Infective stages of the parasite were unable to penetrate the mucus body covering of resistant fish."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1974.tb04554.x/abstract

[rwb500]

just for the record - I don't agree with 3FordFamily about pretty much anything he said. It's not worth my time to explain why. Anyone who understands science already knows.

[reefgeezer]

5 seconds of googling - study about freshwater ich from 1974.

Sorry... I was wondering if the scientific studies mentioned were done more recently, in a closed marine system, with sensitive marine specimens, & etc. I suppose there is something that can be deduced from a 40 year old study of a tough freshwater species. I might be a little smarter than a 4th grader most of the time but I'm not a scientist. I am smart enough to know that my ability to analyze, comprehend, and determine the appropriate actions from scientific studies is limited. I have to ask a lot of questions.

[rwb500]

i was not comparing you to a 4th grader at all! thats not what I meant. I simply meant that the age of the study should not be a concern, because it is so simple. If anything, the age of that study should give it more reliability, because they had fewer methods available, and could only detect relatively strong deviations from the null hypothesis (low statistical power).

We cannot expect recent research in such simple topics. If 40 years ago they could prove that fish have acquired immune responses, all of the recent literature is going to take that for granted, and delve into more specific questions. what you are asking for is a like a 5 year-old paper proving the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. we have been past that for quite some time.

[billsreef]

Bill now I know why I got an infraction the other day - You disagree with me! :D

If that was the reason, I would have burned out the infraction button ages ago :D

I would produce biased results which is one of the very things I am saying affects the actual validity of many scientific studies.

You should really read some good scientific papers. The discussion section in particular, which is were good researchers will talk about the possible biases, things that need to be looked into more (good research often raises more questions), possible errors or problems in their methods...essentially a good self critique. Not to mention, one can certainly look at the data presented and methods used and come to their own conclusions...either agreeing or disagreeing with the authors, which is often what leads to others trying to duplicate the results. As for emotional bias (which seems to the sort your talking about) skewing results, that is actually pretty rare. It is not unusual to see a researcher do an experiment thinking they are going to confirm a hypothesis, only to get eye opening results that prove the exact opposite...or something even entirely different and unexpected. In the case of researchers such as Colorni et al., they would have loved nothing better than to have proved your take as the correct one....than they could have successfully gone on to the next step of developing a vaccine for these pesky parasites, something that would be worth a small fortune to the aquaculture industry. So really, if there was any bias, it would be on your side of the argument...yet the science has come out against it.

You nor I know the exact methodology used for any of those studies. That's my point sir.

Once again, read the papers. It's all in the "Methods" section. A well written peer reviewed research paper will go into sufficient detail for any other research to analyze thier methods and duplicate them. On the point of analyzing the methods used, it's rather easy for researchers in the particular field to look at them and see if they make sense as methods that would work. And yes, sometimes we science types read a paper and disagree with it.

[MondoBongo]

Is there a study on "Acquired Immunity to Dinoflagellate (or Protozoan) Parasites in Closed Marine Environments"? Something authored in the last 10 years would be great. Peer reviewed would be better. Anyone?

yes! this paper is from 2007.

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttp://scsagr.scsfri.ac.cn/upimg/200853010029.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm32y7UsUcv734HcRqkyNFkrR0K61A%26nossl%3D1%26oi%3 Dscholarr&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=X&ei=DyjvVKiTC4ahgwSYi4KoBA&ved=0CB4QgAMoATAA&usg=AFQjCNFkMlUcMrsnSXSr9W3A1ZhbfITSIg

This suggests that elicitation of grouper immune response to C. irritans requires 7 - 14 days. Antibody titres peaked between Weeks 4 and 6 and decreased at Week 8.

In this study, the highest immobilisation titres of immune grouper fish serum and skin supernatant were 80 and 8, respectively, which are much lower than those (3600 and 179, respectively) of catfish against I. multifiliis with similar immunisation dose [20]. High immobilisation was not achieved even when rabbit anti-C. irritans serum was used (data not shown). The first possible explanation for the low immobilisation titre of grouper fish to C. irritans is that the immobilisation antigens in the surface of C. irritans are not as abundant as in that of I. multifiliis, or the immunogenicities of surface proteins of C. irritans are not as strong as that of I. multifiliis. Another possible explanation is that fish have also developed good immune response to C. irritans, but their antibodies could not stop the beating of cilia of C. irritans theronts as easily as that of I. multifiliis because its theronts swim faster (an average of 780 um s-1, unpublished data) than its freshwater counterpart and its cilia may beat more strongly.

2008:
http://scsagr.scsfri.ac.cn/upimg/2008427125141.pdf

Table 3 shows the results of immobilization assays using sera from ten different fish species. Only sera of the yellow spotted grunt and the orange-spotted grouper immobilized C. irritans theronts (Table 3). Immobilization and lysis were observed using video-microscopy. Before serum was added, theronts swam quickly, and their cilia moved rapidly and rhythmically. After the addition of sera, swimming of theronts began to slow down and their cilia clumped together (Fig. 1a and b). Cells incubated in sera became round and eventually lysed (Fig. 1c). Theronts incubated with negative serum or physiological saline survived for
more than 12 h.

In this study, it is found that infection intensity of C. irritans infection varied in different fish species, and snubnose pompano (T. blochii) was the most heavily infected fish. Different host may have different susceptibility to C. irritans. We are not sure if our data reflects this variation because this was a field investigation, and many factors in the wild may affect the results. But we are confident that snubnose pompano is very susceptible to this parasite, and it has been successfully used as an experimental host to propagate C. irritans in our laboratory (Dan et al. 2006).

2006:
http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/161524/1/29.pdf

To conclude, the response of immunized grouper E. coioides either by exposure to C. irritans theronts or injection of formalin-killed C. irritans suggests that an acquired protective immunity had been conferred. The evidences included higher antibody titers in the mucus of the exposure-immunized fish and higher fish survival and fewer trophonts and tomonts in the vaccine immunized fish than the control groups. The antibody titers increased with an increase in the number of parasite used in the exposure. The antibodies from the skin of the fish may have prevented the adhesion, invasion and development of C. irritans theronts; those that developed were fewer or even smaller than the control. Cellular immunity may play a role in the defense of fish but the antibodies appear vital in providing a complete protection of grouper against C. irritans.


2008:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DD68A5F9707485690FBD268A5BB78C52.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2121584

Serum from fish immunized with C. irritans theronts had agglutination/immobilization activity against theronts in vitro. However, fish and rabbit antisera raised against serotype G32 (reported previously) caused little agglutination/immobilization of serotype G37 theronts.


2012:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ichiro_Misumi/publication/51477027_Immune_protection_of_Mozambique_tilapia_(Oreochromis_mossambicus)_exposed_to_different_infe ctious_doses_of_ectoparasite_(Cryptocaryon_irritans)/links/02e7e5269ed05eb1e2000000.pdf

Fish were re-exposed to parasites (10 K theronts per fish for all groups) 28 days after the primary exposure in order to examine
the effect of infective doses on the immune protection. When fish were primarily exposed to and recovered from C. irritans infection, these immunized fish developed complete protection against the secondary exposure irrespective of initial parasite dose (Table 1; group 2–7). However, 0.9±0.2 trophonts per pectoral fin were detected from fish that primarily received the lowest dose (0.3 K) although the number of trophont was much lower than the primary number of trophont (24.83±1.79 trophonts per a pectoral fin) at a dose of 10 K theronts per fish. No parasites were found in fish without the secondary exposure (Table 1; group 8 through 14).

Duration of immunological memory seemed not to be dependent on infectious doses with the primary exposure. High levels of immobilization activity and specific antibodies against the 28 kD antigen were produced 21 days after initial exposure at all dose levels. However, the apparent decreases in immobilization titres and the specific antibody levels were observed in fish that were not reexposed to C. irritans for 49 days after the initial exposure (Fig. 7). The decline in immobilization titres and the specific antibody level in those fish probably resulted from a loss of antigenic stimulus. Very similar results were obtained by Luo et al. (2007) using grouper (Epinephelus coioides).


unfortunately what i am having trouble finding are more recent studies on the long term immunity, or lack thereof, that exposure confers.

my conclusions are:

1. fish can develop forms immunity
2. different species of fish have different reactions to the parasite(s)
3. mortality rates are effected by a number of factors
4. different strains of ich respond differently to the immune response
5. fish with immunity can still act as a carrier for trophonts, even if asymptomatic
6. immunity DOES decrease over time, however the specifics of the decrease need further study (or i just need to find the articles about them!)

cheers.

[reefgeezer]

yes! this paper is from 2007...

Thanks. Nicely organized and your conclusions seem reasonable based on the data you presented. I appreciate the time you spent to answer my question.

Maybe someday there will be a viable vaccine or something that will prevent Ich and other parasitic infestations, and make all of our lives easier.

[MondoBongo]

Thanks. Nicely organized and your conclusions seem reasonable based on the data you presented. I appreciate the time you spent to answer my question.

Maybe someday there will be a viable vaccine or something that will prevent Ich and other parasitic infestations, and make all of our lives easier.

hey no problem, i got to read some very interesting material to do it, that's why i love this kind of stuff.

i have to think that with the economic impact of these diseases, it only makes sense that people would be working towards a viable vaccine. it would be wonderful if, at some point, that made its way down to the hobbyist level.

[3FordFamily]

Good reads that don't refute what I said. They don't confirm either. At the end of the day everyone acts like knee jerk stressful reactions are the ONLY option. They're not.

[MondoBongo]

Good reads that don't refute what I said. They don't confirm either. At the end of the day everyone acts like knee jerk stressful reactions are the ONLY option. They're not.

now who is the one who needs to last word? :lmao:

the reason they don't support or refute what you said before is, and this may shock you, they have nothing to do with anything you posted.

your claims were already addressed by multiple posters, in multiple ways. the preceding was in direct response to someone else.

[albano]

now who is the one who needs to last word? :lmao:

the reason they don't support or refute what you said before is, and this may shock you, they have nothing to do with anything you posted.


With his over 500 posts in less than 30 days, did you expect to get the 'last word'?

[Fade2White12]

With his over 500 posts in less than 30 days, did you expect to get the 'last word'?

I have about half that in 7.5 years. :p

[hart24601]

yes! this paper is from 2007.

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttp://scsagr.scsfri.ac.cn/upimg/200853010029.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm32y7UsUcv734HcRqkyNFkrR0K61A%26nossl%3D1%26oi%3 Dscholarr&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=X&ei=DyjvVKiTC4ahgwSYi4KoBA&ved=0CB4QgAMoATAA&usg=AFQjCNFkMlUcMrsnSXSr9W3A1ZhbfITSIg





2008:
http://scsagr.scsfri.ac.cn/upimg/2008427125141.pdf





2006:
http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/161524/1/29.pdf




2008:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DD68A5F9707485690FBD268A5BB78C52.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2121584




2012:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ichiro_Misumi/publication/51477027_Immune_protection_of_Mozambique_tilapia_(Oreochromis_mossambicus)_exposed_to_different_infe ctious_doses_of_ectoparasite_(Cryptocaryon_irritans)/links/02e7e5269ed05eb1e2000000.pdf






unfortunately what i am having trouble finding are more recent studies on the long term immunity, or lack thereof, that exposure confers.

my conclusions are:

1. fish can develop forms immunity
2. different species of fish have different reactions to the parasite(s)
3. mortality rates are effected by a number of factors
4. different strains of ich respond differently to the immune response
5. fish with immunity can still act as a carrier for trophonts, even if asymptomatic
6. immunity DOES decrease over time, however the specifics of the decrease need further study (or i just need to find the articles about them!)

cheers.

Wow, this is good stuff. Shermanator, does this change your opinion at all about ich and immunity? Since you teach immunology what do you think about the papers listed?

[snorvich]

with his over 500 posts in less than 30 days, did you expect to get the 'last word'?

rotflmao :spin3: Also, for those truly interested in peer reviewed papers, Google Scholar will provide lots of good information, some for free, some for cost.

[rwb500]

great references that simply support the notion that fish have acquired immune systems just like ours.


Good reads that don't refute what I said. They don't confirm either. At the end of the day everyone acts like knee jerk stressful reactions are the ONLY option. They're not.

you are no longer part of the conversation. you have clearly demonstrated the lack of desire or ability to participate in a scientific conversation.

[snorvich]

Using Google Scholar and the search term "cryptocaryon irritans immunity" you can get a wealth of information if you are truly interested. They allow refinement by date if so desired. Papers always have a methodology description which is sort of a requirement for peer reviewed papers.

[Paul B]

Bill knows I disagree with him on this which is why it is so much fun to post. But I will post it just for fun as I did before. :lol2:
People love to quote scientific studies, link to trials and studies by researchers who studied this in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
But those studies all have one thing in common. None of those researchers keep a fish tank. They have microscopes, assistants, Government grants and more degrees than a thermometer, but no fish tanks except the one they keep in the lab. That is the one they learn about things such as parasites on. That tank was set up last Tuesday and it will be taken down in 6 weeks when the research money runs out and it will be used for turtles or to grow tomatoes. I can say my fish are immune because my tank is way older than even those researchers, (who probably keep those little green turtles in those plastic tanks with the plastic palm tree in it) Those researchers can not, and will not try to say why my fish do not get ich. They just don't know as it goes against their professors teachings. I know why and I only have a 100 year old microscope, but I also have something else. Or at least I don't have something else, and that thing is a college degree. Not having that degree allows me to think outside the box, not just right outside, or a few feet away from the box, but all the way on the next block. I know why, and my fish know why they don't get ich or anything else. They don't care about the life cycle of the parasite or the temperature in which it turns into tomites. They just don't care. What they do care about is not getting sick. And in my 60 years of keeping fish, I have found out an easy way to achieve that. Bill knows but he doesn't agree with me because he is sitting down there in Miami enjoying the sun while I am here shoveling snow and looking at my perfectly healthy tank in which I just added two shrimpfish today. Parasites or not, it doesn't matter. In 7 years my very healthy tank will turn fifty years old. I am not a genius, but I think that trumps all the scientific studies on how to cure or better yet, prevent ich. I never have to cure it, because my fish don't get it. This is never taken well here which is why I am writing a book that Bill will never read. But Bill, I still love you and enjoy these "discussions" Wear a hat because you are a little thin on top and your head is burning. :wavehand:

(Bill is going to quote me all sorts of studies now, I can't wait, right now he is cleaning krill guts from the deck of a research boat)

[Reef Frog]

QUESTION 1
Regarding marine ich, I've always wondered what is the exact mechanism of death. For example, a mosquito bite doesn't kill, but the malaria parasite does. So in fish, does this parasite do something like draw out enough blood volume or blood sugar or disolved oxygen in the blood to kill the fish? Or does it corrupt vital organs by physically eating tissue, prey on gut contents thereby starving the fish? Does it release a poison or even perhaps a viral, bacterial or protozoan that actually does the killing? Ive read about ich in the gills, but is that all there is to it? Is there any agreement on the "root cause" of death? I've only skimmed a handful of scientific studies but don't recall seeing this discussed.

Also, are there any known bio controls or micro predators for ich in the ocean? (Something besides cleaner shrimp & fish). Something must prey on it.

QUESTION 2
I vaugely recall reading an interesting statement in the RC Fish Disease forum several years ago when researching & treating a Royal Gramma for Ich. I can't find it now but it went something like this (all paraphrased from memory so kindly excuse any inaccuracies):

In an aquarium that has had no new additions of fish or anything else that might introduce NEW individual parasites, it seems that the (virulence or perhaps numbers ?) of the parasites drops over time. After 11 breeding cycles, the (population) declines by X%. By Y breeding cycles it drops to Z (or maybe dies off entirely?)

I have no remembrance if this was anecdote, rumor or an accurate fragment from a legitimate study from the world of aquatic science, but that was the jist of it. It was intriguing, as it seems to be plausible at least. There are lots of examples of population damage, decline & even total destruction of isolated populations that are denied genetic diversity in other realms of the animal kingdom. Anyone know anything about this?

[billsreef]

you are no longer part of the conversation. you have clearly demonstrated the lack of desire or ability to participate in a scientific conversation.

Unfortunately he didn't learn from that infraction I had to give him in the lounge, and he ran afoul of several other moderators to point of going bye bye.

Bill knows I disagree with him on this which is why it is so much fun to post. But I will post it just for fun as I did before. :lol2:

:uzi: :D :lol:

People love to quote scientific studies, link to trials and studies by researchers who studied this in the 50s, 60s and 70s.And 80's, 90's, 00's and 10's ;)

But those studies all have one thing in common. None of those researchers keep a fish tank.

I'm curious, how do you know this? I don't personally know the researchers in the links Mondo provided (though I'm familiar with the research) and therefore have no idea if they have their own personal tanks or not. As for the researchers I've known (the ones with more degrees with thermometers), a number of them keep personal fish tanks. It's actually fairly common. My current boss (and director of the marine science program here) is bona fide fish head that even worked in an LFS in his younger days. My old boss back at Stony Brook, while not keeping a fish tank, certainly knew his way around a proper aquaculture set up, wasn't afraid of getting his hands dirty with actual fish keeping, ran multi year experiments (one lasting just over 10 years)...which also lead to him truly appreciating the value of having someone run his lab that knew what they were doing (aka me :D )

Bill knows but he doesn't agree with me because he is sitting down there in Miami enjoying the sun while I am here shoveling snowIt was 86 F today :D

But Bill, I still love you and enjoy these "discussions" Wear a hat because you are a little thin on top and your head is burning. :wavehand:No worries, I always wear a hat to keep the top of my head from burning.

Especially while enjoying the Florida sunshine while out on the boat :D


(Bill is going to quote me all sorts of studies now, I can't wait, right now he is cleaning krill guts from the deck of a research boat)Nah, Mondo covered the studies pretty well.

As for the deck, it was worse than krill guts, though less smelly. Sand. I hate sand on the deck. But I've got a group of students that are doing a study on a small island out in the bay, so I get to drop them and their equipment on the beach, then pick them back up...all full of sand :fun5:

[billsreef]

Reef Frog,

For Question number 1, it is often a combination of direct physical damage (especially to the gills) and secondary infection as result of that physical damage.

Question number 2,

IIRC it was one of Colorni's papers that noted a given strain would die out after 11 generations without any fresh genes being brought into the gene pool.

[Paul B]

Bill, I knew I could count on you to wake up. I just love these little talks, don't you?
I am jealous as now I have to go out and although we are now having a heat wave, it is 20 degrees out. Take it easy Bill. :wave:

(I hole some peiople realize that although Bill and I don't agree, we never argue)

[billsreef]

Paul,

If it makes you feel any better, it's cloudy today and supposed to be rain showers off and on all day. Only supposed to get up to mid 70's...brrrr :D

[hart24601]

It sounds like ich immunity is pretty well established in the literature. What is the debate about? How long it lasts? Heck, in this paper they even inactivate the ich and inject it and it provides good protection. It was probably already linked, so I apologize for that, but the titles are not listed on the links. The results look pretty good.

Seven days after the challenge, the protection rates of the PBS control, Adjuvant control, Vaccine I, and Vaccine II groups were 0, 10%, 40%, and 80% respectively.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050464812004780

Abstract:
"In order to elucidate the immune-protective mechanisms of inactivated Cryptocaryon irritans vaccine, different doses of C. irritans theronts were used to immunize orange-spotted grouper (Epinephelus coioides). We measured serum immobilization titer, blood leukocyte respiratory burst activity, serum alternative complement activity, and serum lysozyme activity weekly. In addition, the expression levels of immune-related genes such as interleukin-1β (IL-1β), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), major histocompatibility complexes I and II (MHC I and II), and transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) were determined in spleen and gills. The results showed that the immobilization titer, respiratory burst activity, and alternative complement activity of immunized fish were significantly increased, and the levels of the last two immune parameters in the high-dose vaccine group were significantly higher than in the low-dose vaccine group. Serum lysozyme activity in the high-dose vaccine group was significantly higher than in the PBS control group. Vaccination also regulated host immune-related gene expression. For example, at 2- and 3- weeks post immunization, IL-1β expression in the high-dose vaccine group spleen was significantly increased. At 4-weeks post immunization, the fish were challenged with a lethal dose of parasite, and the survival rates of high-dose vaccine group, low-dose vaccine group, PBS control group, and adjuvant control group were 80%, 40%, 0%, and 10% respectively. These results demonstrate that inactivated C. irritans vaccination improves specific and nonspecific immune responses in fish, enhancing their anti-parasite ability. These effects are vaccine antigen dose-dependent."

[MondoBongo]

It sounds like ich immunity is pretty well established in the literature. What is the debate about?

a lot of this, in regards to my involvement, actually started in another thread. there was some, shall we say, vigorous disagreement as to whether or not QT worked, if it was worth it, and why you should/should not use a QT protocol. so there's a bit of history here.

then it sort of spiraled out of control from there, with some weird assertions, misunderstandings/conflations of science in general and the specifics of immunity, a strange implicit conspiracy about a fish tank illuminati that are trying to supress "the real truth" about ich (seriously, read the threads), ya know i don't even know anymore. haha.

:deadhorse1:

[hart24601]

a lot of this, in regards to my involvement, actually started in another thread. there was some, shall we say, vigorous disagreement as to whether or not QT worked, if it was worth it, and why you should/should not use a QT protocol. so there's a bit of history here.

then it sort of spiraled out of control from there, with some weird assertions, misunderstandings/conflations of science in general and the specifics of immunity, a strange implicit conspiracy about a fish tank illuminati that are trying to supress "the real truth" about ich (seriously, read the threads), ya know i don't even know anymore. haha.

:deadhorse1:

Ah, I see. Thanks!

[Savant]

ROFL I thought I was asking a relatively innocuous question but I do think I have found the answers buried among some of the just plain crazy responses.

What I learned from this battle royal:

1) fish probably can develop an immune response to parasites

2) Well established healthy tanks are probably themselves immune or extremely resistant to a conducive environment for the ich parasite

3) Perceived immunity in some tanks could just be the fish are asymptomatic of ich and have not yet reached the level of immunity found in #2

4) Quarantining is probably a good thing for tanks that have not been well established for a number of years

5) and most important of all......never start a thread about Ich Immunity :thumbsup:

I would like to thank everybody that contributed to this thread!

Some of the people who's opinions I respect the most here at RC have lent their opinions and produced facts in this thread. This has definitely allowed me to make better informed decisions about how I think about Ich and how it interacts with fish and aquariums.

And isnt that ^^ the purpose of the forums in the first place :reading:

THANK YOU! :beer:

[Paul B]

Only supposed to get up to mid 70's...brrrr


Yes I feel much better now. I have to go out now and buy some more salt, no, not Instant ocean, Calcium Chloride to put on my sidewalk so Dorothy Hammel stops skating back and forth past my house.

[ca1ore]

I'm neither a scientist nor a researcher in this field, however, I have had more tanks than most; less than some .... I have observed ich take many different routes on different tanks. In some tanks, regardless of the supposed 'immunity' of my fish, an introduced strain of ich takes hold of most of the fish and requires intervention. In some other tanks, newly introduced fish get symptoms initially, but they go away and do not return.

I know that I have ich in my main display and its been there for at least 18 months. The only two fish that ever show any symptoms are an Achilles (surprise, surprise) and a hippo. None of the other fish show any symptoms, either physical or behavioral. and haven't in that 18 months. I do QT all fish, and when I have introduced new anthias or basslets, they never show any symptoms either. However, if I introduce a new Tang, it will show spots after a few days. In all cases but one, the symptoms go away after a few days, with no subsequent reoccurrence. The only exception was a Naso Tang that also got itself pinned to the side of my MP60. Draw your own conclusions.

So, how to explain my observations? Have I just been fortunate to have a mild strain of ich? Has the ich exhausted itself over I dunno how many generations? Did my fish acquire an immunity? I don't know the answer; I just know what I have observed. I do believe in QT, because there are far worse things out there than ich, and I will continue to run all new fish purchases through my protocol, but you all have to (well, maybe not have to ; ought to ?:)) admit that there appears to be more to this whole ich thing than perhaps we as yet fully understand.

[Paul B]

(well, maybe not have to ; ought to ?) admit that there appears to be more to this whole ich thing than perhaps we as yet fully understand.


Exactly.
(Bill, 6" of snow last night)

[MondoBongo]

Is it even ich I think may also be a valid question. Is it possible that a different thing, be it parasite, infection, other, could present similar symptoms as the disease, but be distinct and less/not harmful?

[reefgeezer]

is it even ich i think may also be a valid question. Is it possible that a different thing, be it parasite, infection, other, could present similar symptoms as the disease, but be distinct and less/not harmful?

+1...

[Mishri]

I wonder if the immunity displayed in large established tanks is linked to the life cycle of ich? Many of the tomites unsuccessfully attempt to feed from an immune fish, so even if you bring something new in it doesn't really have a chance from your super fish that have been bombarded by all sorts of disease and parasites and lived? hmmm..

^ intentionally not using scientific terms to show I'm just speculating possibilities and not trying to find the exact phrasing for what is exactly taking place. I'm not going to analyze it too much.