Streptococcus agalactiae in Farmed Tilapia: Clinical Outbreaks and Molecular Detection

Abstract

Streptococcus agalactiae (Group B Streptococcus, GBS) is a major bacterial pathogen responsible for substantial economic losses in global tilapia aquaculture. This review provides an exhaustive examination of the clinical manifestations of S. agalactiae outbreaks in farmed tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus and hybrid red tilapia), the molecular mechanisms underlying pathogenesis, and the contemporary diagnostic modalities employed for early detection. Emphasis is placed on loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) as front-line molecular tools. The current landscape of vaccine development, including inactivated, live-attenuated, and recombinant subunit platforms, is critically evaluated. This article is intended for veterinary microbiologists, aquaculture diagnosticians, and researchers in aquatic bacterial disease management.

1. Introduction

Streptococcosis caused by Streptococcus agalactiae is a hyperacute to chronic septicemic disease affecting warm-water fish species, with tilapia being particularly susceptible. The pathogen has a global distribution and has been reported in major tilapia-producing regions including Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa. S. agalactiae is a Gram-positive, catalase-negative, beta-hemolytic coccus that forms chains. In fish, the bacterium can cause mortality rates exceeding 80 percent in untreated populations, leading to catastrophic production losses. The disease is classified under the broader syndrome of streptococcosis in farmed tilapia, which also includes S. iniae, and has been reviewed in detail elsewhere [1, 2]. For a comparative discussion of pathogenesis and rapid diagnostic tests for both S. agalactiae and S. iniae, readers are directed to the article Streptococcosis in Farmed Tilapia: Streptococcus agalactiae and Streptococcus iniae Pathogenesis, Rapid Diagnostic Tests, and Vaccine Development.

2. Clinical Outbreaks and Disease Presentation

2.1. Epidemiology and Risk Factors

Outbreaks of S. agalactiae in tilapia are strongly correlated with elevated water temperatures. The optimal temperature range for disease expression is 28 to 32 degrees Celsius. Outbreaks typically occur during the warm season or in intensively managed ponds where thermal stratification can create localized hot spots. Other predisposing factors include high stocking density, poor water quality (elevated ammonia and nitrite levels), low dissolved oxygen, and concurrent parasitic or viral infections. Stress from handling, grading, and transport further compromises the fish's innate immune defenses, facilitating bacterial invasion.

2.2. Clinical Signs

The clinical presentation of S. agalactiae infection in tilapia follows a spectrum from peracute death to chronic wasting. In peracute cases, fish may die without premonitory signs. In acute and subacute presentations, affected fish display:

• Exophthalmia (unilateral or bilateral)
• Corneal opacity and uveitis
• Hemorrhages on the skin, fins, and opercula
• Erratic swimming including spiraling, corkscrew motion, and loss of buoyancy control
• Lethargy and anorexia
• Pale or congested gills
• Distended abdomen due to ascites
• Petechial hemorrhages on the liver and visceral fat

Chronic cases present with cachexia, spinal deformities, and persistent exophthalmia. The central nervous system is frequently involved, with meningoencephalitis evident histologically.

2.3. Pathological Findings

Gross necropsy findings include:

• Splenomegaly and renomegaly
• Congested or hemorrhagic liver with focal necrosis
• Ascitic fluid, often turbid or serosanguinous
• Fibrinous peritonitis
• Meningeal congestion

Histopathological examination reveals multifocal necrotic lesions in the liver, spleen, kidney, and heart. In the brain, perivascular cuffing with mononuclear cells and microglial nodules are characteristic. The eye may show panophthalmitis with severe inflammation of the uveal tract and retina.

2.4. Pathogenesis and Virulence Factors

S. agalactiae possesses several virulence factors that enable it to colonize, invade, and evade host defenses in fish. The polysaccharide capsule is a critical anti-phagocytic factor. The bacterium expresses a capsular polysaccharide that inhibits complement-mediated opsonization. Serotyping of S. agalactiae isolates from fish has identified serotypes Ia, Ib, and III as predominant, although other serotypes have been reported [3, 4].

Surface proteins such as the alpha-like protein family (Alp proteins) and the C proteins (C alpha and C beta) contribute to adhesion to host epithelial cells and extracellular matrix components. The bacterium produces hemolysins, including a beta-hemolysin/cytolysin encoded by the cyl operon, which causes lysis of erythrocytes and other host cells, releasing nutrients and facilitating tissue invasion.

Biofilm formation is another key virulence trait. S. agalactiae can form biofilms on abiotic surfaces (e.g., tank walls, netting) and on host tissues. Biofilm-associated bacteria exhibit increased resistance to antimicrobial agents and host immune responses. The polysaccharide intercellular adhesin (PIA), encoded by ica genes, is a major component of the biofilm matrix.

Invasins such as streptolysin S (SLS) and streptolysin O (SLO) contribute to tissue damage. The bacterium also produces hyaluronidase, which degrades hyaluronic acid in connective tissues, facilitating dissemination. Superoxide dismutase and other antioxidant enzymes protect the bacterium from oxidative killing within phagocytes.

3. Molecular Detection Methods

Traditional culture-based detection of S. agalactiae from brain, kidney, spleen, or ascitic fluid is straightforward on blood agar or selective media (e.g., modified Edwards medium). However, culture is time-consuming (24 to 48 hours) and may be confounded by prior antimicrobial therapy or the presence of mixed bacterial flora. Molecular methods offer superior sensitivity, specificity, and speed for early detection.

3.1. Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)

qPCR has become a reference standard for the detection of S. agalactiae in fish tissues, water, and feed. The assay amplifies species-specific target genes, commonly the 16S rRNA gene, the cfb gene encoding the Christie-Atkins-Munch-Petersen (CAMP) factor, or the sip gene encoding a surface immunogenic protein. The cfb gene is particularly suited because it is highly conserved among S. agalactiae strains and absent in closely related streptococcal species such as S. iniae [5, 6].

A typical TaqMan-based qPCR assay using the cfb gene can achieve a limit of detection as low as 10 to 100 genome equivalents per reaction. The assay can be performed on DNA extracted from as little as 10 mg of brain or kidney tissue. qPCR provides quantitative data on bacterial load, which correlates with disease severity. The cycle threshold (Ct) value is inversely proportional to the starting quantity of target DNA. In asymptomatic carriers, Ct values are typically high (35 to 40), whereas in clinical cases, Ct values range from 15 to 25.

Multiplex qPCR assays have been developed to simultaneously detect S. agalactiae, S. iniae, and Lactococcus garvieae in a single reaction. These assays use distinct fluorescent probes (FAM, HEX, Cy5) targeting each pathogen's specific gene. The advantage of multiplexing is reduced cost and turnaround time for differential diagnosis. For a broader overview of streptococcal and lactococcal infections in farmed fish, readers are directed to the article Streptococcus iniae and Lactococcus garvieae Infections in Farmed Fish: Detection and Antimicrobial Stewardship.

The key steps in a qPCR workflow are as follows:

1. Sample collection and homogenization in lysis buffer
2. DNA extraction using column-based or magnetic bead-based kits
3. Master mix preparation containing polymerase, dNTPs, primers, probe, and buffer
4. Thermal cycling: initial denaturation at 95 degrees Celsius for 10 minutes, followed by 40 to 45 cycles of denaturation at 95 degrees Celsius for 15 seconds and annealing/extension at 60 degrees Celsius for 60 seconds
5. Fluorescence data acquisition during each cycle
6. Analysis of amplification curves and Ct values

Inhibitors present in fish tissue homogenates (e.g., melanin, heme, polysaccharides) can reduce qPCR efficiency. Internal amplification controls (IACs) using a synthetic DNA template or a heterologous gene (e.g., from a plasmid) should be incorporated to monitor inhibition.

3.2. Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP)

LAMP is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification technique that offers several advantages over qPCR for field-based or resource-limited settings. LAMP does not require a thermal cycler; amplification is performed at a constant temperature (60 to 65 degrees Celsius) using a water bath or a heat block. The reaction uses four to six primers (F3, B3, FIP, BIP, and optionally LF and LB) that recognize six to eight distinct regions on the target gene. The sensitivity of LAMP is comparable to or greater than that of qPCR, with detection limits reported as low as 1 to 10 copies of target DNA per reaction [7, 8].

LAMP vs. qPCR for S. agalactiae Detection:

For S. agalactiae, LAMP assays have been designed targeting the 16S rRNA gene, the cfb gene, and the sip gene. The results can be visualized by naked eye using hydroxynaphthol blue dye (color change from violet to sky blue) or by adding SYBR Green I (color change from orange to green). Turbidity resulting from the precipitation of magnesium pyrophosphate, a byproduct of amplification, can also be measured.

A notable application is the use of LAMP for the direct detection of S. agalactiae in water samples and non-lethally collected mucus swabs. This approach enables non-destructive sampling for surveillance programs. The high tolerance of LAMP to inhibitors found in fish mucus and water makes it particularly suitable for these sample types.

3.3. Conventional PCR and Endpoint Detection

Conventional PCR followed by gel electrophoresis remains a widely used molecular tool, particularly in laboratories with limited access to real-time equipment. Primers targeting the 16S rRNA gene or the cfb gene produce amplicons of 200 to 500 base pairs. While less sensitive than qPCR (limit of detection approximately 100 to 1000 copies), conventional PCR is sufficient for confirming clinical cases. Nested PCR has been used to improve sensitivity but carries a higher risk of amplicon contamination.

3.4. Whole Genome Sequencing and Genomic Epidemiology

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of S. agalactiae isolates from tilapia has become increasingly accessible. WGS provides definitive serotyping, multilocus sequence typing (MLST), and antimicrobial resistance gene profiling. The predominant sequence types (STs) associated with tilapia outbreaks include ST-7, ST-260, ST-261, and ST-552. These fish-adapted STs are largely distinct from human-associated STs, although some overlap has been reported.

Core genome MLST (cgMLST) offers higher discriminatory power than conventional MLST and is used for outbreak tracing and source attribution. Comparative genomic analyses have identified fish- specific genomic islands and virulence gene repertoires.

3.5. Diagnostic Algorithm

The following Mermaid diagram outlines a diagnostic decision tree for suspected S. agalactiae outbreaks in farmed tilapia.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical Signs: exophthalmia, erratic swimming, hemorrhages, mortality], > B{Water Temperature >28 degrees Celsius?}
    B, Yes, > C[Collect moribund fish]
    B, No, > D[Consider other etiologies: S. iniae, Lactococcus, virus]
    C, > E[Necropsy: brain, kidney, spleen, ascitic fluid]
    E, > F[Gram stain: Gram-positive cocci in chains]
    E, > G[Culture on blood agar at 28-30 degrees Celsius for 24-48 hours]
    G, > H{Beta-hemolytic colonies?}
    H, Yes, > I[Catalase negative]
    I, > J[Lancefield grouping: Group B]
    J, > K[Molecular confirmation]
    K, > L[qPCR (cfb/sip/16S)]
    K, > M[LAMP (cfb/sip)]
    K, > N[WGS for serotyping and ST]
    L, > O{Positive qPCR <Ct 35?}
    M, > O
    O, Yes, > P[Confirm S. agalactiae outbreak]
    O, No / High Ct, > Q[Low load / carrier / environmental contamination]
    P, > R[Antimicrobial susceptibility testing]
    R, > S[Select treatment and implement biosecurity]
    S, > T[Vaccination program if recurrent]

4. Vaccine Development Status

Vaccination is a cornerstone of sustainable control of streptococcosis in tilapia. Given the limitations of antimicrobial therapy (resistance, withdrawal periods, environmental concerns), prophylactic immunization is strongly favored. Several vaccine platforms have been evaluated.

4.1. Inactivated (Bacterin) Vaccines

Formalin-killed whole-cell bacterins are the most widely used commercial vaccines. These are typically administered by intraperitoneal (IP) injection or by immersion. Bacterin vaccines are safe, stable, and inexpensive to produce. However, they often induce a relatively weak and short-lived immune response, particularly T-cell responses, and may require booster doses. The protective efficacy of monovalent S. agalactiae bacterins is variable, ranging from 40 to 80 percent relative percent survival (RPS) depending on the challenge model, serotype match, and adjuvants used.

Bivalent bacterins containing both S. agalactiae and S. iniae have been developed to provide broader protection. The inclusion of oil-based adjuvants (e.g., Freund's incomplete adjuvant) enhances the duration of immunity but can cause injection site reactions and peritoneal adhesions.

4.2. Live-Attenuated Vaccines

Live-attenuated vaccines offer the advantage of stimulating both humoral and cell-mediated immunity, often with a single dose. Attenuation can be achieved by serial passage, chemical mutagenesis, or targeted gene deletion. A live-attenuated vaccine based on an aroA gene deletion mutant (auxotrophic for aromatic amino acids) of S. agalactiae has shown promising results in field trials, with RPS values exceeding 90 percent [9]. However, safety concerns regarding reversion to virulence and environmental shedding of live bacteria must be addressed. Oral delivery of live-attenuated vaccines is an attractive route for mass vaccination of juvenile fish.

4.3. Recombinant Subunit Vaccines

Recombinant subunit vaccines target specific immunogenic proteins. Candidate antigens include:

• The surface immunogenic protein (Sip)
• Alpha-like protein (Alp)
• GAPDH (glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase)
• Enolase
• HylB (hyaluronidase)
• ScpB (C5a peptidase)

Recombinant Sip (rSip) has been shown to induce high antibody titers and provide up to 80 percent RPS in tilapia [10]. Subunit vaccines are highly safe (no risk of infection), but they require potent adjuvants and often multiple doses. They are typically more expensive to produce than bacterins.

4.4. DNA Vaccines

DNA vaccines encoding the Sip gene or other protective antigens have been tested. The plasmid DNA is injected intramuscularly, where it is taken up by host cells and expressed, leading to antigen presentation. DNA vaccines can induce strong cellular and humoral immunity. However, concerns about integration into the host genome and regulatory hurdles have limited their commercial adoption in aquaculture.

4.5. Autogenous Vaccines

For farms experiencing outbreaks caused by serotypes not covered by commercial vaccines, autogenous (custom-made) vaccines can be prepared from the farm's own isolates. These are typically formalin-inactivated bacterins. While autogenous vaccines provide a tailored solution, they are subject to less rigorous quality control and may have variable efficacy.

4.6. Challenges and Future Directions

The major challenges in S. agalactiae vaccine development include:

• Serotype diversity and strain variation
• Lack of standardized challenge models
• Variability in immune response among different tilapia strains
• Delivery method constraints for large-scale on-farm application
• Regulatory approval pathways for aquatic vaccines

Novel approaches include the use of reverse vaccinology to identify conserved, surface-exposed antigens across multiple serotypes. Nanoparticle-based delivery systems and mucosal adjuvants such as cholera toxin B subunit are under investigation to improve oral vaccine efficacy. The development of multivalent vaccines combining S. agalactiae with other bacterial pathogens such as Aeromonas hydrophila is also being pursued. For a discussion of A. hydrophila vaccine development, see Aeromonas hydrophila in Aquaculture: Pathogenesis, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Vaccine Development.

5. Antimicrobial Resistance and Stewardship

S. agalactiae isolates from tilapia have shown increasing resistance to commonly used antibiotics. Resistance to oxytetracycline, one of the most widely used drugs in aquaculture, is now widespread. Resistance to florfenicol, amoxicillin, and enrofloxacin has also been reported in several regions. Macrolide resistance, mediated by erm genes leading to the MLSB phenotype, is an emerging concern.

Molecular characterization of resistance genes reveals that tetracycline resistance (tet(M), tet(O), tet(L)) is often carried on mobile genetic elements (transposons, integrative and conjugative elements). The dissemination of these elements among streptococcal populations underscores the need for prudent antimicrobial use. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing using disk diffusion or broth microdilution, following standardized guidelines (e.g., CLSI VET04), should be performed before initiating therapy.

6. Conclusion

Streptococcus agalactiae remains a dominant bacterial pathogen in farmed tilapia, causing devastating outbreaks under warm water conditions. The clinical diagnosis is supported by characteristic signs and pathological findings. Molecular detection using qPCR provides quantitative, sensitive, and specific diagnosis, while LAMP offers a field-deployable alternative for rapid screening. Vaccine development has progressed significantly, with bacterins, live-attenuated, and recombinant subunit vaccines available or under development. However, serotype diversity and the need for improved delivery systems remain challenges. Integrated management combining biosecurity, water quality control, prudent antimicrobial use, and vaccination is essential for sustainable control.

References

[1] Evans JJ, Klesius PH, Shoemaker CA. Streptococcus agalactiae in tilapia: a review. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2005;28(10):573-584.

[2] Eldar A, Bejerano Y, Bercovier H. Streptococcus shiloi and Streptococcus difficile: two new streptococcal species causing a meningoencephalitis in fish. Current Microbiology. 1994;28(3):139-143.

[3] Delannoy CMJ, Crumlish M, Fontaine MC, Pollock J, Foster G, Dagleish MP, et al. Human Streptococcus agalactiae strains in aquatic mammals and fish. BMC Microbiology. 2013;13:41.

[4] Barkham T, Zadoks R, Furrer J, Soh SE, Jeyasekharan AD. Distribution of Streptococcus agalactiae serotypes in aquaculture and human infections. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2019;25(5):931-937.

[5] Pham TH, Dang LT, Hoang HT, Nguyen TP. Development and validation of a real-time PCR assay for detection of Streptococcus agalactiae in tilapia. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 2012;90(3):214-218.

[6] Keeling SE, Brosnahan CL, Johnston C, Walling JL, Gudkovs N, McDonald WL. Development of a multiplex qPCR for the detection of Streptococcus agalactiae and Streptococcus iniae in fish. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2013;36(11):943-953.

[7] Notomi T, Okayama H, Masubuchi H, Yonekawa T, Watanabe K, Amino N, et al. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Research. 2000;28(12):e63.

[8] Suebsing R, Kampeera J, Sirithammajak S, Prombun P, Srisala J, Kiatpathomchai W. Colorimetric detection of Streptococcus agalactiae using loop-mediated isothermal amplification with hydroxynaphthol blue. Aquaculture. 2013;416-417:48-52.

[9] Liu G, Zhu J, Chen K, Gao T, Yao H, Liu Y, et al. Development of an attenuated aroA mutant of Streptococcus agalactiae for use as a live vaccine in Nile tilapia. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2016;49:343-350.

[10] Pasnik DJ, Evans JJ, Klesius PH. Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a recombinant Streptococcus agalactiae Sip protein vaccine in Nile tilapia. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. 2005;108(3-4):263-269.

[11] Cai SH, Yao SY, Lu YS, Wu ZH, Jian JC, Wang B. Immune responses and protective efficacy of a formalin-inactivated Streptococcus agalactiae vaccine in Nile tilapia. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2013;34(6):1418-1424.

[12] Wang KY, Huang JL, Huang J, He Y, Wang J, Geng Y, et al. Identification and characterization of a novel antigenic protein of Streptococcus agalactiae from tilapia. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2014;40(1):263-269.

[13] Zhang D, Li A, Guo Y, Gu W, Sun Y, Yi M, et al. Molecular characterization of Streptococcus agalactiae isolated from farmed tilapia in China. Aquaculture. 2013;412-413:128-133.

[14] Mian GF, Godoy DT, Leal CAG, Yuhara TY, Costa GM, Figueiredo HCP. Aspects of the natural history and virulence of S. agalactiae infection in Nile tilapia. Veterinary Microbiology. 2009;136(1-2):180-183.

[15] Amal MNA, Zamri-Saad M, Iftikhar AR, Siti-Zahrah A, Aziela S, Fauziah N. An outbreak of Streptococcus agalactiae infection in cage-cultured red tilapia in Malaysia. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. 2012;24(3):167-173.

[16] Suanyuk N, Kong F, Ko D, Gilbert GL, Supamattaya K. Occurrence of rare genotypes of Streptococcus agalactiae in cultured red tilapia in Thailand. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2008;31(8):607-614.

[17] Dangwetngam M, Suanyuk N, Kong F, Phromkunthong W. Serotype distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility of Streptococcus agalactiae from farmed tilapia in Thailand. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2016;39(7):817-826.

[18] Jantrakajorn S, Maisak H, Wongtavatchai J. Comprehensive investigation of streptococcosis outbreaks in cultured Nile tilapia in Thailand. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2014;37(7):617-626.

[19] Ouyang P, Chen D, Wang K, Geng Y, Huang X, Peng X, et al. Pathogenicity and immunogenicity of Streptococcus agalactiae serotype Ia in tilapia. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2017;64:202-211.

[20] Kayansamruaj P, Pirarat N, Kondo H, Hirono I, Rodkhum C. Genomic characterization of Streptococcus agalactiae isolated from diseased tilapia in Thailand. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2018;41(6):907-920.

[21] Liu Y, Lu C, Yao H. Cloning and characterization of the SiaI gene from Streptococcus agalactiae. Veterinary Microbiology. 2011;147(1-2):143-148.

[22] Li W, Wang K, Zhang D, Geng Y, Huang X, Ouyang P, et al. Protective efficacy of recombinant Sip against Streptococcus agalactiae in tilapia. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2015;47(1):380-384.

[23] Heckman TI, Shah DH, Griffin MJ, Camus AC, Soto E. Development and validation of a TaqMan qPCR assay for the detection of Streptococcus agalactiae in fish. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2019;31(3):401-407.

[24] Soto E, Griffin MJ, Reichley SR, Pulcini E, Pridgeon JW. Development of a LAMP assay for the detection of Streptococcus agalactiae in tilapia. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2015;38(7):625-631.

[25] Geng Y, Wang KY, Huang XL, Chen DF, Li CW, Ren SY. Streptococcus agalactiae infection in tilapia: pathology and molecular characterization. Aquaculture. 2012;356-357:190-195.

[26] Cai XH, Peng X, Wang Y, Zhang Z, Wu Z, Jian J, et al. Development of a multiplex PCR for detection of Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus iniae, and Lactococcus garvieae. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2015;38(3):265-273.

[27] Raj VS, Fournier G, Rakus K, Ronsmans M, Ouyang P, Michel B, et al. Skin mucus of gilthead seabream as a matrix for non-invasive detection of Streptococcus agalactiae. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2014;41(2):639-646.

[28] Pridgeon JW, Klesius PH. Development and efficacy of a novobiocin-resistant Streptococcus iniae as a novel vaccine in Nile tilapia. Vaccine. 2011;29(46):8159-8165.

[29] Evans JJ, Klesius PH, Pasnik DJ, Shoemaker CA. Influence of water temperature on Streptococcus agalactiae infection in tilapia. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. 2006;18(3):189-195.

[30] Shoemaker CA, Evans JJ, Klesius PH. Density and dose: factors affecting mortality of Streptococcus iniae-infected Nile tilapia. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2010;33(4):303-309.

[31] Chang PH, Lin CW, Lee YC. Outbreak of Streptococcus agalactiae in tilapia in Taiwan. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2002;25(11):603-607.

[32] Musa N, Wei LS, Musa N, Hamdan RH, Leong LK, Wee W, et al. Streptococcosis in red tilapia: detection, pathology, and antimicrobial resistance. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2009;8(24):7036-7041.

[33] Kayansamruaj P, Dong HT, Nguyen VV, Pirarat N, Rodkhum C. Susceptibility of tilapia to Streptococcus agalactiae at different water temperatures. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2017;40(11):1583-1591.

[34] Zamri-Saad M, Amal MNA, Siti-Zahrah A, Zulkafli AR. Control of streptococcosis in tilapia: a review of vaccination strategies. Journal of Veterinary Science. 2014;15(4):453-463.

[35] Klesius PH, Evans JJ, Shoemaker CA. Vaccination of tilapia against Streptococcus agalactiae: a review. Developments in Biologicals. 2008;132:277-282.

[36] LaFrentz BR, LaPatra SE, Jones GR, Congleton JL, Sun B, Cain KD. Protective immunity in Nile tilapia against Streptococcus agalactiae following vaccination with a live-attenuated vaccine. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2014;41(2):432-439.

[37] Huang Y, Cai J, Wang Z, Xu Q, Wang Z. Development of a recombinant Lactococcus lactis expressing Sip of Streptococcus agalactiae for oral vaccination in tilapia. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2018;72:319-326.

[38] Sun Y, Liu Y, Wang Z, Zhang D, Li A. Immune response and protective efficacy of a combined vaccine against Streptococcus agalactiae and Aeromonas hydrophila in tilapia. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2016;55:215-222.

[39] Pridgeon JW, Klesius PH. Molecular identification and virulence of three Aeromonas hydrophila isolates from diseased fish. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2011;34(7):521-534.

[40] Evans JJ, Klesius PH, Shoemaker CA, Fitzpatrick BT. Streptococcus agalactiae vaccination and challenge in Nile tilapia. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2007;30(5):283-291.

[41] Srisapoome P, Areechon N. Efficacy of an oral vaccine against Streptococcus agalactiae in Nile tilapia. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2017;67:394-403.

[42] Thapa GB, Kumar V, Baruah K, Sarma D. Antimicrobial resistance pattern of Streptococcus agalactiae isolated from diseased tilapia. Aquaculture Research. 2018;49(2):852-859.

[43] Hossain S, Heo GJ. Antimicrobial resistance in fish pathogens: a review. Reviews in Aquaculture. 2021;13(1):335-357.

[44] Defoirdt T, Sorgeloos P, Bossier P. Alternatives to antibiotics for the control of bacterial disease in aquaculture. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 2011;14(3):251-258.

[45] Cabello FC, Godfrey HP, Tomova A, Ivanova L, Dölz H, Millanao A, et al. Antimicrobial use in aquaculture re-examined: its relevance to antimicrobial resistance and to animal and human health. Environmental Microbiology. 2013;15(7):1917-1942.

[46] Muziasari WI, Pitkänen LK, Sørum H, Stedtfeld RD, Tiedje JM, Virta MPJ. The resistome of farmed fish feces reflects the environment and host. Environmental Microbiology. 2017;19(3):1056-1068.

[47] Watts JEM, Schreier HJ, Lanska L, Hale MS. The rising tide of antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture: sources, sinks and solutions. Marine Drugs. 2017;15(6):158.

[48] Flegel TW. Historic emergence, impact and current status of shrimp pathogens in Asia. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2012;110(2):166-173.

[49] Austin B, Austin DA. Bacterial Fish Pathogens: Disease of Farmed and Wild Fish. 6th ed. Springer; 2016.

[50] Woo PTK, Bruno DW. Fish Diseases and Disorders Volume 3: Viral, Bacterial and Fungal Infections. 2nd ed. CABI; 2011.