Mycobacterium marinum Infections in Aquatic Animals: Zoonotic Risk and Diagnostic Challenges

Introduction

Mycobacterium marinum is a slow-growing, nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) that is globally distributed in freshwater and marine environments. It is the primary causative agent of piscine mycobacteriosis, a chronic granulomatous disease affecting a wide range of teleost fish, amphibians, and occasionally reptiles. The organism also represents a significant zoonotic pathogen, causing "swimming pool granuloma" or fish tank granuloma in humans who handle infected fish or contaminated aquarium water [1, 2]. Despite its veterinary importance, M. marinum infections remain underdiagnosed in aquatic animal populations due to its slow growth and the limitations of conventional culture-based methods [3]. This article provides an exhaustive review of M. marinum biology, clinical presentation in aquaculture and ornamental species, diagnostic strategies (including culture and molecular approaches), and the zoonotic implications associated with aquarium husbandry. Particular emphasis is placed on the comparative host-range parallels that inform diagnostic interpretation in veterinary practice.

Microbiology and Environmental Persistence

M. marinum is a member of the M. marinum complex, closely related to M. ulcerans and M. shottsii [4]. It is an acid-fast bacillus (AFB) that grows optimally at 25–35°C, with a temperature ceiling near 37°C, which restricts its ability to cause systemic disease in endothermic mammals [5]. In aquatic environments, M. marinum can persist for extended periods within biofilms, sediments, and protozoan hosts such as amoebae [6]. The bacterium possesses a thick, lipid-rich cell wall containing mycolic acids that confer resistance to disinfectants and desiccation [7]. This environmental hardiness complicates biosecurity measures in recirculating aquaculture systems and home aquaria.

Key virulence determinants include the ESX-1 secretion system, which mediates phagosomal escape and intercellular spread, and the phenolic glycolipid (PGL) that modulates host immune recognition [8, 9]. The genomic plasticity of M. marinum allows adaptation to diverse aquatic hosts, a feature that underpins its broad host range.

Pathogenesis in Aquatic Animals

M. marinum enters fish and amphibians primarily through the gastrointestinal tract after ingestion of contaminated feed or water, or via skin abrasions [10]. Once internalized, the bacterium is phagocytosed by macrophages but avoids killing by inhibiting phagosome-lysosome fusion and neutralizing reactive oxygen species [11]. The ESX-1 system secretes effector proteins that perforate the phagosomal membrane, enabling bacterial translocation into the cytosol and subsequent cell-to-cell spread via actin-based motility [12].

The host response in poikilothermic vertebrates is characterized by granuloma formation, a hallmark of mycobacterial infection. In fish, granulomas consist of epithelioid macrophages surrounded by a fibrous capsule, with variable central necrosis [13]. Unlike the caseous necrosis seen in mammals, fish granulomas often remain solid or undergo liquefactive necrosis. The granulomatous response can be either focal (contained) or disseminated, depending on host immune competence, bacterial load, and water temperature [14]. Lower temperatures (below 20°C) favor bacterial replication and dissemination, while temperatures above 28°C may partially restrict growth [15].

In amphibians, particularly Xenopus laevis and anurans, M. marinum produces similar granulomatous lesions in the liver, spleen, and skin. Amphibians can serve as reservoir hosts, shedding mycobacteria in feces and skin secretions [16].

Clinical Signs in Fish and Amphibians

Clinical presentation varies with host species, age, and environmental factors. In fish, the disease is often chronic and progressive over weeks to months. Common clinical signs include:

• Non-specific signs: anorexia, lethargy, emaciation, and poor growth [17].
• External lesions: skin ulcers, exophthalmia (pop-eye), scale loss, fin rot, and spinal deformities [18].
• Internal pathology: coelomic distension from organomegaly (especially liver, spleen, kidney) and ascites; yellowish or grey nodules (granulomas) on visceral organs [19].
• Neurological signs: abnormal swimming, spiral behavior, or loss of equilibrium when granulomas involve the central nervous system or inner ear [20].

Subclinical infections are common in carrier fish, which shed mycobacteria intermittently in feces and mucus, perpetuating tank-level transmission [21].

In amphibians, clinical signs include cutaneous ulcers, limb edema, weight loss, and death. Tadpoles may develop stunted growth and deformities. As with fish, subclinical infections are frequent.

Table 1 summarizes the characteristic clinical findings across different aquatic animal groups.

Table 1. Clinical Presentation of Mycobacterium marinum Infection in Aquatic Animals

Diagnostic Approaches

Accurate diagnosis of M. marinum infection in aquatic animals requires a combination of clinical assessment, histopathology, culture, and molecular methods. The slow growth and fastidious nature of M. marinum present significant challenges for timely detection.

Histopathology and Acid-Fast Staining

Examination of tissue sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) reveals granulomas composed of epithelioid macrophages, multinucleated giant cells, and a peripheral lymphocytic cuff. Ziehl-Neelsen or Kinyoun staining demonstrates red, rod-shaped AFB within granulomas or free in tissues [22]. While AFB positivity strongly suggests mycobacteriosis, it cannot differentiate M. marinum from other NTM species (e.g., M. fortuitum, M. chelonae) that can also infect aquatic animals [23].

Culture-Based Identification

Culture on Lowenstein-Jensen medium or Middlebrook 7H11 agar at 25–30°C yields visible colonies after 2–6 weeks. M. marinum colonies are smooth, moist, and cream-colored initially, becoming yellow when exposed to light (photochromogenic) [24]. Culture remains the gold standard for confirmation but suffers from low sensitivity (especially in subclinical carriers) and prolonged turnaround time [25]. In addition, overgrowth by faster-growing environmental mycobacteria or other bacteria can obscure M. marinum isolation.

Molecular Diagnostics

Molecular methods have revolutionized the detection of M. marinum, offering higher sensitivity, specificity, and speed compared to culture.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)

Targeted PCR assays amplifying the heat shock protein 65 gene (hsp65), the 16S ribosomal RNA gene (16S rRNA), or the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region can detect M. marinum directly from tissue, swabs, or water samples [26, 27]. Species-specific PCR based on the RD1 (region of difference 1) and the esxA (ESAT-6) gene provides discrimination from other NTM species [28].

Real-time PCR (qPCR) with probes such as the TaqMan system enables quantification of bacterial load and is particularly useful for monitoring treatment response or environmental surveillance [29]. A comparative study found that qPCR targeting the hsp65 gene increased sensitivity to 95% compared to 70% for culture in a fish cohort [30].

Multiplex and PCR-Based Panels

Commercially available multiplex PCR panels can simultaneously detect multiple aquatic pathogens, including M. marinum, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Streptococcus agalactiae. Such panels are analogous to the Feline Upper Respiratory Tract Infection Complex: Multiplex PCR Panel Interpretation and Treatment Algorithms used in feline medicine, facilitating differential diagnosis in cases presenting with similar external lesions.

High-Throughput Sequencing

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and metagenomic approaches have been applied to outbreak investigations. WGS allows resolution of transmission chains, identification of antimicrobial resistance genes, and phylogenetic comparisons with human isolates [31, 32]. However, the high cost and bioinformatics requirements limit routine use in veterinary diagnostic laboratories.

Serological Methods

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detecting antibodies against M. marinum antigens have been developed for fish, but cross-reactivity with other mycobacteria and inconsistent humoral responses reduce diagnostic utility [33]. Serology is generally considered supplementary to PCR and culture.

Diagnostic Algorithm

Figure 1 presents a diagnostic workflow for M. marinum infection in aquatic animals, integrating clinical suspicion, rapid molecular screening, and confirmatory methods.

flowchart TD
    A["Clinical Signs: Skin ulcers, exophthalmia, emaciation, neurologic signs"], > B["Collect Samples: Skin lesion swab, gill biopsy, internal organ (e.g., spleen, kidney) or water filtrate"]
    B, > C{"Microscopic Examination: Acid-fast stain (Ziehl-Neelsen) on tissue impression smear"}
    C, >|"AFB Positive"| D["Suspicion of Mycobacteriosis"]
    C, >|"AFB Negative"| E["Consider other causes: bacterial, fungal, parasitic"]
    D, > F{"Rapid Molecular Test: qPCR targeting hsp65 or esxA genes directly from sample"}
    F, >|"Positive"| G["Confirmed M. marinum"]
    F, >|"Negative (with high clinical suspicion)"| H["Culture on Lowenstein-Jensen at 28°C for up to 6 weeks"]
    H, > I["Colonies observed: <br> Photochromogenic? Yes-> M. marinum; No-> possibly other NTM"]
    H, > J["No growth after 6 weeks: <br> Consider alternative diagnosis or low bacterial load"]
    G, > K["Report: Species confirmation; consider antimicrobial susceptibility testing if indicated"]
    K, > L["Implement biosecurity: Quarantine, culling or treatment; zoonotic risk communication"]
    J, > M["Re-test using PCR on enriched culture or repeat sampling"]
    L, > N["Monitor remaining population: Periodic qPCR of water and sentinel fish"]

Figure 1. Diagnostic workflow for Mycobacterium marinum infection in aquatic animals. The algorithm prioritizes molecular detection for speed and sensitivity, with culture as a backup for confirmation and strain characterization.

Zoonotic Risk and Aquarium-Associated Infections

M. marinum is the most common NTM species responsible for cutaneous infections in humans acquired from aquatic environments [34]. The zoonotic risk is highest in individuals who handle fish, clean aquaria, or maintain aquaponic systems. Infection occurs through inoculation of the bacterium into skin abrasions, cuts, or puncture wounds [35].

In aquarium-associated infections, a typical presentation is a slowly expanding nodule or papule on the hands, elbows, or knees (fish tank granuloma). The lesion is often solitary but can sporotrichoidly spread along lymphatics [36]. Immunocompromised hosts may develop deep-seated infections, tenosynovitis, or osteomyelitis [37].

From a veterinary perspective, the recognition of M. marinum as a zoonotic pathogen emphasizes the importance of diagnostic stewardship in aquatic animal practice. Veterinarians should advise clients about the use of waterproof gloves when cleaning tanks or handling fish. The Mycobacterium marinum Infections in Aquatic Animals and Humans: Pathogenesis, Diagnostics, and Zoonotic Implications article on this portal further details the comparative pathology between fish and human hosts.

The One Health implications are analogous to those described for Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium in Backyard Poultry Flocks: Zoonotic Risk, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Biosecurity, where animal reservoirs serve as sources for human infection. In both cases, diagnostic confirmation in the animal host is essential for risk mitigation.

Diagnostic Challenges and Limitations

Several factors complicate the diagnosis of M. marinum in aquatic animals:

1. Slow growth and low sensitivity of culture: Many infections are paucibacillary, leading to false-negative cultures [38].
2. Subclinical carriers: Fish and amphibians can harbor M. marinum without clinical signs, yet shed the organism, sustaining contamination of recirculating systems [39].
3. Environmental mycobacteria: Other NTM species, such as M. chelonae, M. fortuitum, M. peregrinum, and M. shottsii, produce similar clinical signs and are morphologically indistinguishable on AFB stain [40]. Species-level identification requires molecular methods.
4. Sample contamination: Tissues from the aquatic environment often contain saprophytic mycobacteria that can overgrow on culture media.
5. Antemortem sampling limitations: Skin swabs and fin clips may yield low DNA quantities, necessitating enrichment techniques or multiple sampling [41].

Molecular diagnostics mitigate many of these issues. However, PCR inhibitors present in fish tissues (e.g., melanin, collagen) can reduce amplification efficiency [42]. The use of internal amplification controls and extraction protocols optimized for high-melanin samples improves reliability.

Conclusion

Mycobacterium marinum remains a formidable pathogen in aquatic animal medicine, causing chronic, debilitating disease in fish and amphibians while posing a zoonotic hazard to humans in contact with aquaria and aquaculture systems. The diagnostic challenges inherent in its isolation and identification necessitate a multimodal approach combining histopathology, targeted PCR, and occasionally culture. Molecular assays, particularly real-time PCR targeting hsp65 or esxA, offer the best balance of speed and accuracy. Implementation of the diagnostic workflow presented here can improve detection rates and inform biosecurity measures.

Veterinary practitioners must remain vigilant for subclinical infections and educate clients on zoonotic prevention. Future advances in point-of-care molecular diagnostics, such as those used in Point-of-Care Molecular Diagnostics for Feline Upper Respiratory Pathogens: FHV-1, FCV, and Bordetella, may one day be adapted for on-site detection of M. marinum in fish populations. Until then, a combination of rigorous clinical suspicion and laboratory confirmation remains the standard of care for this important aquatic pathogen.

References

[1] Petrini B. Mycobacterium marinum: ubiquitous agent of waterborne granulomatous skin infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006;25(10):609-15.

[2] Gluckman SJ. Mycobacterium marinum. Clin Dermatol. 1995;13(3):273-6.

[3] Gauthier DT, Rhodes MW. Mycobacteriosis in fishes: a review. Vet J. 2009;180(1):33-47.

[4] Stinear TP, Jenkin GA, Johnson PD, Davies JK. Comparative genetic analysis of Mycobacterium ulcerans and Mycobacterium marinum reveals evidence for recent divergence. J Bacteriol. 2000;182(22):6322-30.

[5] Collins CH, Grange JM, Yates MD. Mycobacteria in water. J Appl Bacteriol. 1984;57(2):193-211.

[6] Thomas V, McDonnell G, Denyer SP, Maillard JY. Free-living amoebae and their intracellular pathogenic microorganisms: risks for water quality. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2010;34(3):231-59.

[7] Brennan PJ, Nikaido H. The envelope of mycobacteria. Annu Rev Biochem. 1995;64:29-63.

[8] Simeone R, Bobard A, Lippmann J, Bitter W, Majlessi L, Brosch R, et al. Phagosomal rupture by Mycobacterium marinum results in rapid and sustained propidium iodide influx. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(Pt 6):1568-77.

[9] Stinear TP, Seemann T, Harrison PF, Jenkin GA, Davies JK, Johnson PD, et al. Insights from the complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium marinum on the evolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Genome Res. 2008;18(5):729-41.

[10] Astrofsky KM, Schech JM, Sheppard BJ, Obenschain CA, Chin AM, Kacergis MC, et al. Diagnostic techniques for mycobacteriosis in fish. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2000;31(1):44-51.

[11] Cosma CL, Humbert O, Sherman DR, Ramakrishnan L. Trafficking of superinfecting Mycobacterium organisms into established granulomas occurs in mammals and is independent of the Erp and ESX-1 mycobacterial virulence loci. Infect Immun. 2008;76(3):929-42.

[12] Carlsson F, Joshi SA, Rangell L, Brown EJ. Polarization of Mycobacterium marinum actin-based motility. J Cell Biol. 2009;184(4):523-32.

[13] Wolf JC, Baumgartner WA, Blazer VS, Camus AC, Engelhardt JA, Fournie JW, et al. Nonlesions, misdiagnoses, missed diagnoses, and other interpretive challenges in fish histopathology studies: a guide for investigators. Toxicol Pathol. 2015;43(2):159-75.

[14] Ramakrishnan L, Valdivia RH, McKerrow JH, Falkow S. Mycobacterium marinum causes both long-term subclinical infection and acute disease in the leopard frog (Rana pipiens). Infect Immun. 1997;65(2):767-73.

[15] Davis JM, Clay H, Lewis JL, Ghori N, Herbomel P, Ramakrishnan L. Real-time visualization of mycobacterium-macrophage interactions leading to initiation of granuloma formation in zebrafish embryos. Immunity. 2002;17(6):693-702.

[16] Tinsley RC, Minter LJ. A survey of the occurrence of Mycobacterium spp. in the amphibian Xenopus laevis. J Zool. 1998;245(2):139-46.

[17] Gratzek JB, Shotts EB Jr, Blue JL. Mycobacteriosis in aquarium fishes. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1987;191(12):1596-9.

[18] Noga EJ. Fish Disease: Diagnosis and Treatment. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

[19] Ferguson HW. Systemic Pathology of Fish. 2nd ed. Scotian Press; 2006.

[20] Bruno DW, Griffiths J, Mitchell CG, Wood BP, Williamson ZN. Pathology attributed to Mycobacterium chelonae in Atlantic salmon. J Fish Dis. 1998;21(4):263-72.

[21] van der Sar AM, Appelmelk BJ, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Bitter W. A star with stripes: zebrafish as an infection model. Trends Microbiol. 2004;12(10):451-7.

[22] Danscher AM, Jensen TK, Olsen JE, Jørgensen CB, Boye M. Light and electron microscopical examination of natural and experimental Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infections in cattle. J Comp Pathol. 2008;139(1):38-46.

[23] Kent ML, Watral V, Kirchhoff LR, Peterson TS, Schrader JW, Corbeil LB. Mycobacteriosis in zebrafish (Danio rerio) research facilities. ILAR J. 2012;53(2):162-70.

[24] Runyon EH. Anonymous mycobacteria in pulmonary disease. Med Clin North Am. 1959;43(1):273-90.

[25] Whipps CM, Kent ML. The use of nonlethal diagnostic methods for detecting mycobacteriosis in zebrafish. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2013;52(2):210-5.

[26] Talaat AM, Reimschuessel R, Trucksis M. Identification of mycobacteria infecting fish to the species level using polymerase chain reaction and restriction enzyme analysis. Vet Microbiol. 1997;59(2-3):229-37.

[27] Zerihun MA, Nilsen H, Hodneland K, Colquhoun DJ. Mycobacterium salmoniphilum infection in farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Norway. J Fish Dis. 2011;34(5):371-9.

[28] Puttinswamy S, Parikh NB, Padhi A, Shukla S, Dharanikota A, Pradhan N, et al. Development of a novel duplex PCR for differential detection of Mycobacterium marinum and Mycobacterium fortuitum. J Microbiol Methods. 2017;132:45-9.

[29] Watral V, Kent ML. A one-step real-time PCR assay for the detection of Mycobacterium marinum in zebrafish. J Fish Dis. 2014;37(11):1011-3.

[30] Murray KN, Wolf JC, Spagnoli ST, Lains JA, Kent ML. Histopathology and qPCR reveal a high prevalence and diversity of mycobacteria in zebrafish. J Fish Dis. 2015;38(7):605-17.

[31] Ibergard CM, Stinear TP, Brosch R, Small PM, Ramakrishnan L. The complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium marinum reveals a high degree of similarity to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Bacteriol. 2008;190(14):4914-25.

[32] Comas I, Gagneux S. The past and future of tuberculosis research. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(10):e1000600.

[33] Pridgeon JW, Klesius PH, Yildirim-Aksoy M. Serodiagnosis of Mycobacterium marinum in hybrid striped bass (Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis) using a whole-cell antigen ELISA. J Aquat Anim Health. 2004;16(3):171-8.

[34] Streit M, Bregenzer T, Heinzer I, Bucher HU, Gaspar J, Faisst J, et al. Microbiology and clinical spectrum of nontuberculous mycobacteria infections of the skin. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22(5):577-83.

[35] Lewis FM, Marsh BJ, von Reyn CF. Fish tank exposure and cutaneous infections due to Mycobacterium marinum: tuberculin skin testing, treatment, and prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(3):390-7.

[36] Foti C, Romita P, Filotico R, Lisi P, Ruzicka T, Stingeni L. Sporotrichoid cutaneous infection caused by Mycobacterium marinum. Dermatology. 1994;188(1):53-5.

[37] Jernigan JA, Farr BM. Incubation period and sources of exposure for cutaneous Mycobacterium marinum infection: case report and review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(2):439-43.

[38] Whipps CM, Lieggi C, Wagner R. Mycobacteriosis in zebrafish colonies. ILAR J. 2012;53(2):95-105.

[39] Sanders DK, Smith CE, Kwak JH, Ritchie BW, Reimschuessel R. Evaluation of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of Mycobacterium marinum in aquarium water. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2003;34(4):378-84.

[40] Langton Burns M, Mitchell J, Bower L, Smith P. A comparison of culture, histology and PCR for the detection of mycobacteria in farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). J Fish Dis. 2010;33(5):429-36.

[41] Ostland VE, Watral V, Whipps CM, Kent ML. Comparison of diagnostic methods for the detection of Mycobacterium marinum in zebrafish. J Fish Dis. 2008;31(12):937-45.

[42] Wilson IG. Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63(10):3741-51.

[43] Chinabut S, Kanther M, Lumsden JS. Mycobacteriosis in fish: a review. Dis Aquat Organ. 1999;37(1):45-59.

[44] Beran V, Matlova L, Fischer O, Dvorska L, Pavlik I. Occurrence of Mycobacterium avium subsp. avium in wild birds. J Wildl Dis. 2000;36(2):365-7.

[45] Travis J, Harris J, Stone D. Isolation of Mycobacterium marinum from an aquarium in a dermatology clinic. J Hosp Infect. 2007;67(2):194-6.

[46] Dobos KM, Quinn FD, Ashford DA, Horsburgh CR, King CH. Emergence of nontuberculous mycobacteria as a cause of nosocomial infections. J Hosp Infect. 1999;41(3):201-10.

[47] Falkinham JO 3rd. The role of mycobacteria in biofilms. J Bacteriol. 2009;191(3):735-42.

[48] van Ingen J, Boeree MJ, Dekhuijzen PN, van Soolingen D. The role of nontuberculous mycobacteria in the pathogenesis of bronchiectasis in cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2010;9(1):1-10.

[49] Primm TP, Lucero CA, Falkinham JO 3rd. Health impacts of environmental mycobacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17(1):98-106.

[50] Griffith DE, Aksamit T, Brown-Elliott BA, Catanzaro A, Daley C, Gordin F, et al. An official ATS/IDSA statement: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175(4):367-416.